You say that students who go to community college receive an average of $8k per year in aid. You do know that the amount of CC tuition at eg CUNY is less than $8k per year, the excess going to pay for books, right? You do know that aid will generally not be provided to pay for more than school expenses? If you're talking about aid to students, they literally could not be given much more than about $8k per year. Which points out another problem with our aid model: the SCHOOL could really use another $19k per year to put that $8k per year kid into ASAP. But that would mean providing government funding (and therefore raising taxes... 'oh my stars, not that!').
5
I've often wondered, where were the adults in the room while colleges were hiking tuition way above the rate of inflation for the past 30+ years? I'm not so sure the government should have been underwriting student loans as college administrators went on their spending binge, without some strings attached in the form of caps on tuition increases. It's a history that colleges and elected officials should be ashamed of. The best and brightest; yeah, right.
6
Going to an elite school doesn't guarantee economic success. It's tiresome to hear this assumption repeated so often.
3
All of this talk about college ignores the fact that so many students/families aren't taking advantage of the free education up to grade 12. Indeed the ASAP program bothers me because these are children who don't need university education but the job training provided by so many vocational schools that don't exist anymore because of the PC thinking that all kids need a college education. That's absurd and ASAP programs prove the ignorance of this thinking. let's revive appropriate vocational training, much of which leads to very employable jobs, and start serving our young people instead of acting like all should be college prep in high school
2
You could have saved many words & just point with clarity the progressive retraction of funding for higher ed by states is the driving factor of higher costs. Nope, not admin, not profs who don't teach, or even the football team- student costs and debt are driven by the lost vision that college education is an investment by our society in our future, not just a cosy=t to be endured and cut.
Even the current enthusiasm to provide figures on return to the individual income misses badly the idea of a societal benefit. How do you assign a dollar amount to people who show up to vote, or do a better job raising their kids/
If the cost to attend public schools was greatly diminished, we are pretty sure the privates would have to follow suit, and the for-profits might just go away.
Even the current enthusiasm to provide figures on return to the individual income misses badly the idea of a societal benefit. How do you assign a dollar amount to people who show up to vote, or do a better job raising their kids/
If the cost to attend public schools was greatly diminished, we are pretty sure the privates would have to follow suit, and the for-profits might just go away.
2
Median household income has fallen from $62,000 in 1974 to $52,000 in 2014? You really need to check your numbers on that one. The only comparable data series that I know of that goes back to 1974 is "real median family income" which shows an increase in income. I believe you may be pulling data from a series that the census has declared to not be comparable. Real household income is only comparable back to the mid-80s.
These are basic points that need to be gotten right if any of your conclusions are to be taken seriously.
These are basic points that need to be gotten right if any of your conclusions are to be taken seriously.
I worked my way through college, (a public university), because financial aid wouldn't leave me any walking around money. Tuition and fees my last year were $710. Now they are $10,626. I graduated in 1976.
As for work - I was paid $4.50 an hour, which would be around $20 an hour today. Even with rent, utilities and other living expenses I had plenty of money left over at the end of the month and ended up with close to $20,000 in the bank when I graduated.
The point is that today almost no one could do what I was able to do and I wasn't unusual back then. The cost of education and the measly wages being paid make it near impossible.
As for work - I was paid $4.50 an hour, which would be around $20 an hour today. Even with rent, utilities and other living expenses I had plenty of money left over at the end of the month and ended up with close to $20,000 in the bank when I graduated.
The point is that today almost no one could do what I was able to do and I wasn't unusual back then. The cost of education and the measly wages being paid make it near impossible.
8
Mr. Davidson, states that the actual cost of educating a student in college can be as high as $100,000 per year. The question is why? Why does it cost that much to produce a graduate in history, or English? We need to look at the "core cost of education". By "core cost" I mean the total budget of all the departments ay a university, the salaries of faculty and staff in the departments, who actually do the teaching. Then we will better understand how much goes into support structures, such as physical facilities and libraries and para-educational expenses such as administration. Like hospitals, universities are able to set their tuition at rates that have no real bearing with the actual cost of producing a graduate in a particular subject. They probably don't even know. I am sure with public pressure universities can cut their para-educational expenses. Faculty, students and parents have the right to demand such figures be made public by "non-profit" institutions that profit by not paying taxes.
2
The author seems to cite 'spread of education' as a "cause" of economic and technological advancement, prosperity, and the rise of industry... rather than its product
there are plenty of ME countries where education is doled out for free to anyone. They have scores of bus-drivers with PhDs
Jobs, however, they do not have.
Economic advancement is a precondition for making education a viable good. The author makes the mistake of putting the cart in front of the horse.
there are plenty of ME countries where education is doled out for free to anyone. They have scores of bus-drivers with PhDs
Jobs, however, they do not have.
Economic advancement is a precondition for making education a viable good. The author makes the mistake of putting the cart in front of the horse.
1
"The larger industry can be BROKE down..." Ayy!
Education, from the Latin educare, means “to draw out”, not “to put in”. In a civil, democratic society, higher education, per se, is not about investment, return on investment, statistics, meeting quotas, etc. It is a social good, the act of midwifery which helps develop the faculty of reason and the role of citizenship. The fact that college degrees have now become just another financial instrument, subject to the kind of artificial asset inflation that occurs in the “free market”, says a lot about how we have lost our way in this country.
Good article, but a key ingredient is missing. A major part of ruinous college tuition is the cost of race equity.
Discrimination is the central reality of the human condition. Men discriminate between more desirable and less desirable women (women return the favor, of course). Consumers discriminate between more desirable goods and services and less desirable goods and service. Employees discriminate between more desirable and less desirable employers. And, of course, employers discriminate between more desirable and less desirable employees.
Until the 1971 SCOTUS decision Griggs v Duke Power Co., which made the employer's discrimination among employees a high legal risk proposition. Among other things, this is the decision that made "disparate impact" a thing.
Since the Griggs decision, employers have offloaded the filtering process to colleges and universities. Correspondingly, people who want to work, and who previously had no need or desire to attend college, are now forced to attend college. By the tens of thousands.
Colleges know this. And, as they say in mathematics, the rest follows.
Discrimination is the central reality of the human condition. Men discriminate between more desirable and less desirable women (women return the favor, of course). Consumers discriminate between more desirable goods and services and less desirable goods and service. Employees discriminate between more desirable and less desirable employers. And, of course, employers discriminate between more desirable and less desirable employees.
Until the 1971 SCOTUS decision Griggs v Duke Power Co., which made the employer's discrimination among employees a high legal risk proposition. Among other things, this is the decision that made "disparate impact" a thing.
Since the Griggs decision, employers have offloaded the filtering process to colleges and universities. Correspondingly, people who want to work, and who previously had no need or desire to attend college, are now forced to attend college. By the tens of thousands.
Colleges know this. And, as they say in mathematics, the rest follows.
Perhaps someone should forward this article to gov. Cuomo and tell him to invest in the CUNY system. Our would he be to stupid/incompetent/cynical/blind to understand it?
There are many hidden fees such as technology fee, registration fee etc... all comes to about $ 60,000 in a private college and $ 26,000 in a state university. Middle class families must come up with a family contribution of about two thirds or 40,000. The aid is mostly a variety of loans some of which are at very high interest rate from commercial banks. Many of my former students owe around $ 100,000 in loans. There are about a trillion dollars in student loans some of which are already past due or in default. This model is not working.
When I got the College bill for $ 63,000 for one of my kids I wondered what the costs would be if my wife and I were laggards and spent our all of our money on frivolous items instead of a 529 account. Or what the bill would be for my child if she was 1/64 Native American like Elizabeth Warren. Or how much it would cost if I kicked my kid out the house after the 8th grade, renounce their American citizenship, travel to Mexico and then illegally enter the US.
I'm sure it would not be $ 63,000. That's after-tax dollars folks! Shame on Colleges for sticking it to middle-class Whites.
I'm sure it would not be $ 63,000. That's after-tax dollars folks! Shame on Colleges for sticking it to middle-class Whites.
1
Why is it that tiny Uruguay offers free college education to its citizens but we, the richest nation on earth, does not do it? Higher education in the U.S. is big business and it has to be regulated. The way it is going it is pricing itself out of the market and people will no attend college and universities and online schools will thrive.
I am an independent financial aid analyst living in the Pacific Northwest, and I am not the least bit impressed by the logic, content, and organization of this article. Typically, the author derives the most negative possible inferences from the data he presents, and then he bounces off to his next negative inference.
But a fair presentation of the most relevant and timely data available would make a positive point. Because the news about the system of American college generosity is positive, it's hopeful, and it will change your student's life. And I wish The Times would have published that article instead.
The truth is this: there are affordable college alternatives available to our children today, and those colleges are easy to find using freely available assets on the internet. As an example, I publish my research on the topic of American college generosity online as a public service, and you are welcome to visit my website. But be prepared for some very good news.
But a fair presentation of the most relevant and timely data available would make a positive point. Because the news about the system of American college generosity is positive, it's hopeful, and it will change your student's life. And I wish The Times would have published that article instead.
The truth is this: there are affordable college alternatives available to our children today, and those colleges are easy to find using freely available assets on the internet. As an example, I publish my research on the topic of American college generosity online as a public service, and you are welcome to visit my website. But be prepared for some very good news.
1
Excellent read. Much of the surging cost of many 4-year universities can also be attributed in part to their non-academic investments: Administrative, sports (!), college life, brand awareness/advertising, and amenities that many students may not even use once.
These investments that many (myself included) would call misappropriated downsize the significance of educational progress and the core student-teacher relationship by treating them increasingly as a hub of a far more costly experience.
A large number of Millennials (and Gen Z) are avoiding the pursuit of a degree, mostly in fear of crippling debt slavery but also in championing self-education and individualistic adventure.
I'm currently 21 years old and I just finished paying off the last of my student loan debt from one-half of one semester I jadedly dropped in 2011. It's the first time in my adult life I have ever been debt-free. To go back for a degree now? It is not worth seeing debt like that again. How is it that tuition and interest rates are becoming more cost-prohibitive and restrictive when knowledge is becoming increasingly more free and accessible?
These investments that many (myself included) would call misappropriated downsize the significance of educational progress and the core student-teacher relationship by treating them increasingly as a hub of a far more costly experience.
A large number of Millennials (and Gen Z) are avoiding the pursuit of a degree, mostly in fear of crippling debt slavery but also in championing self-education and individualistic adventure.
I'm currently 21 years old and I just finished paying off the last of my student loan debt from one-half of one semester I jadedly dropped in 2011. It's the first time in my adult life I have ever been debt-free. To go back for a degree now? It is not worth seeing debt like that again. How is it that tuition and interest rates are becoming more cost-prohibitive and restrictive when knowledge is becoming increasingly more free and accessible?
1
I don't even need to read this article to answer the main question: Yes, tuition is too high!! I paid a little over $2,100 for tuition at a state university when I started there in 1978. Tuition there now is $14,000. Using an inflation calculator, tuition should be half that, around, $7,000, so tuition more than doubled the rate of inflation over that time. Still, $14k is a great deal when you look at private schools that cost more than most Americans make a year!
For NYC residents, the tuition at Hunter is $6000+ per year...at CCNY it is $5000+ per year.
Even college dropouts are benefited by the time they spend in school. Any additional schooling we can give kids whether they finish on time, much later or not at all is okay with me. We would be a much better society if we spent gobs and gobs of money on education and much, much less on weapons and wars.
1
The obvious answer to the headline of this article is yes, tuition is too high. In my opinion, institutions of higher education are going to go the way of the horse and buggy. Like it or not, the Internet will (and is) democratize the entire model through ease of access and costs. The current state of overblown tuition fees will only accelerate the pace.
Congratulations! This is the best brief summary I've ever read about college costs. The only shortcoming is the absence of a discussion about the non-economic benefits (such as greater cultural literacy and a cultivated love of learning) that are the hallmark of elite and other liberal arts colleges.
I stopped reading at the part about most families not paying more than 10% of their incomes on tuition. We are a middle-class family with a student attending a top-tier university known for its generous financial aid. Friends of ours in the same economic class have a child attending another of these schools, also famous for financial aid to middle class families. Both schools are ranked within the top 10, actually the top 5, by every rating system around. I can assure you that middle-class families pay far more than 10% of their incomes for tuition alone.
3
The article says: "Nearly everybody admitted to these schools graduates within four years." In fact, the average 4 year grad rate for 5 elite schools (Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Brown and Dartmouth) is 87%. Please be factual.
1
The main issues causing the student loan problem seems to be students who can't pay it back because they either dropped out of college before graduating or they spend 100k of loan money to get a 30K a year job with
their expensive liberal arts degree. I think Avatar Virtual Learning has the right idea (www.igg.me/at/AvatarLearning). Test out of a major part of the tuition cost using the College-Level Examination Program. At least doing a few virtual classes first before taking out all the loans will let the student know if college is for them.
their expensive liberal arts degree. I think Avatar Virtual Learning has the right idea (www.igg.me/at/AvatarLearning). Test out of a major part of the tuition cost using the College-Level Examination Program. At least doing a few virtual classes first before taking out all the loans will let the student know if college is for them.
The semester fee at UCLA in 1945-6, when I got out of the army, was $27.
I helped a family friend buy a new car in 1940, a nice 4-door Pontiac sedan for $665. The penny postcard was IN and a letter cost $0.03. When I graduated UCLA with a PhD. I left my job at the Atomic Energy Project there with its $465/mont5h - was the highest paid graduate student around then. My first job in industry paid me $14,000 (1956), which was better than an instructors position at the University that I had been offered. So that is what happens with a minimum desirable inflation of 25 per annum?!
My grandson is going to UC Davis this month where a quarter costs around
$9287. Of that, tuition and fees are $4650. The number of miscellaneous fees are like those used by the airlines to pad the ticket cost.
I helped a family friend buy a new car in 1940, a nice 4-door Pontiac sedan for $665. The penny postcard was IN and a letter cost $0.03. When I graduated UCLA with a PhD. I left my job at the Atomic Energy Project there with its $465/mont5h - was the highest paid graduate student around then. My first job in industry paid me $14,000 (1956), which was better than an instructors position at the University that I had been offered. So that is what happens with a minimum desirable inflation of 25 per annum?!
My grandson is going to UC Davis this month where a quarter costs around
$9287. Of that, tuition and fees are $4650. The number of miscellaneous fees are like those used by the airlines to pad the ticket cost.
4
I was at UC Berkeley in the early 1950s. The semester fee was then $37. Before that I attended Wayne Univ. in Detroit on the GI Bill. In the early 1960s, I was a student at l’École des Langues Orientales in France, and the tuition was also free for foreigners.
Universities in Europe are still quite cheap compared to the U.S.
Universities in Europe are still quite cheap compared to the U.S.
1
acceptance rates
Stanford University 5.0%
Harvard College 5.3%
Columbia University 6.1%
Yale College 6.5%
Princeton University 7.0%
University of Chicago 7.8%
MIT 8.0%
Brown University 8.5%
Admit Yields
Stanford University 81.1%
Harvard University 80.0%
MIT 72.4%*
Yale University 71.7%*
Princeton University 68.6%
University of Pennsylvania 66%
Columbia University 62.2%*
University of Chicago 60%
Stanford University 5.0%
Harvard College 5.3%
Columbia University 6.1%
Yale College 6.5%
Princeton University 7.0%
University of Chicago 7.8%
MIT 8.0%
Brown University 8.5%
Admit Yields
Stanford University 81.1%
Harvard University 80.0%
MIT 72.4%*
Yale University 71.7%*
Princeton University 68.6%
University of Pennsylvania 66%
Columbia University 62.2%*
University of Chicago 60%
2
Which is pretty good evidence that they're colluding (by gaming the system to admit most students from among those who apply exclusive early action or early decision) not to admit the same students. I don't know why more isn't made of this. It's certainly one way the poor who don't know how to play the game are being rooked.
"Is College Tuition Really Too High?"
Of course it is! With its subsidies and easy money loans, the U.S. federal government has made it easy to raise tuition at a time when the Internet should be making it cheaper. The ruling class learned nothing from the housing bubble because they never accepted responsibility and neither will they learn anything from the student debt bubble.
Of course it is! With its subsidies and easy money loans, the U.S. federal government has made it easy to raise tuition at a time when the Internet should be making it cheaper. The ruling class learned nothing from the housing bubble because they never accepted responsibility and neither will they learn anything from the student debt bubble.
7
Did you read the article?
Get your facts right.Tuition today ,compared to 1974 has risen 15 ton20 times ,$2000 to $30000,$500 to $9000.You got the numbers right ,just not the times as per beginning of article.
Excellent article
Excellent article
3
The author says that $2000 tuition in 1974 is equivalent in purchasing power to $10,300 today. But tuition today is actually $31,000, so in terms of purchasing power it's three times as expensive.
They got the numbers right in inflation-adjusted prices. $2500 in 2015 is the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $510 in 1974, which is what the average annual public university tuition cost back then. The actual 2015 cost of $9000 is 3.6 times $2500. That's what they mean when they say "nearly 4 times."
You are ignoring the effects of inflation - the article discusses the terms in 2015 dollars. A 2015 dollar is worth much less than a 1974 dollar in terms of purchasing power or we'd have cars selling for 20000 rather than 14000 at the bottom of the car market.
Rgrds-Ross
Rgrds-Ross
I'm an independent financial aid analyst, and I have a financial aid IQ question for you. For middle income American families, while adding all living and educational costs and deducting all available financial aid - but not considering loans as aid - which of the following colleges will be the most expensive for their children to attend: Harvard, Stanford, Yale, or their local community college?
The community college is the most expensive alternative.
Harvard, Stanford, and Yale are justifiably proud that they offer educations at their institutions - including the costs of tuition & fees and room & board - to all middle and lower income American families at no cost to the parents while incurring no loans for either the parents or the students. And Harvard, Stanford, and Yale aren't alone.
There is a thriving system of generosity among American colleges, and I ask that the readers of articles like this one not reach grand conclusions about huge college costs and loans until they have learned about the system of American college generosity and what it can offer them and their children.
Harvard, Stanford, and Yale are justifiably proud that they offer educations at their institutions - including the costs of tuition & fees and room & board - to all middle and lower income American families at no cost to the parents while incurring no loans for either the parents or the students. And Harvard, Stanford, and Yale aren't alone.
There is a thriving system of generosity among American colleges, and I ask that the readers of articles like this one not reach grand conclusions about huge college costs and loans until they have learned about the system of American college generosity and what it can offer them and their children.
For middle income American families the local community college would be the most expensive because Harvard, Stanford, and Yale all have enormous endowments that subsidize tuition to almost nothing .. for middle income people. Of course, you have to get into Harvard, Stanford, or Yale. For the vast majority of other schools community college is better. My wife went to a US community college, before I met her, and graduated with a well-respected degree she paid almost nothing for. That's still more than tuition costs here in France, or most of Europe, where public Universities are basically free.
Taxpayers money should be subsidizing Public Colleges to provide a tuition-free education or you can choose to get a so called "Financial Aid" loans to attend an elite school. It should be that simple instead of the racket describes in this informative article.
5
You need to look at cost of attendance, not amount of aid. There's a shell game going on in one tier of higher education (less selective private schools) where they have discovered that middle class students like to be told that they are scholarship-worthy. So the nominal tuition is raised to the level of the highly selective private schools, and then all or almost all students receive a "merit scholarship", lowering the cost of attendance to capture the amount of revenue that the school needs. This captures good, but not top 2% students from families in the top decile for income who would otherwise attend their state flagships as full-pay students (for less total cost).
As an economics writer, shame on you for focusing on the discount instead of the total costs!
As an economics writer, shame on you for focusing on the discount instead of the total costs!
1
It's criminal to allow children to think they deserve As for attendance in high school and that supporting the football team constitutes learning, and then expect them to understand the value of a college degree when they are not paying for it. Top tier schools charge high tuition (the sticker price) only to the rich and fund the rest with tuition discounting (misnamed scholarships) and federal loans. Next level schools follow suit, because tuition is how you know the school is good, right? The slosh of loan and grant money only encourages this. Students have no idea how bad those loans are going to feel in the morning, and they've been encouraged to follow their dreams (thanks, Disney) and support the football team. The whole soup to nuts education system is messed up, and too many people are not prepared to work hard for the few plums left on the tree. The Chinese and Indians will eat our lunch.
4
"English majors, for example, effectively subsidize engineering students because engineering is more expensive to teach." And yet, administrators are trying to squeeze more juice from the stone of the woefully underfunded humanities. Put more resources into the humanities, and you'll get more English majors, subsidising the engineers but also enriching their own lives immeasurably. A win-win.
10
An interesting fact about tuition at the top universities is the obvious collusion that goes on as far as pricing.
2
It isn't "collusion." Have you read the article? The product costs more than universities charge for it and they could raise the prices far higher if it was a "free" market. It may be "too expensive without financial aid for most to afford", but that hardly means that there is collusion in the setting of prices.
Writer bias shows up in funny ways sometimes. In this case, the writer says that the gap between private and public college tuition costs has been closing slowly as states stop funding public colleges as generously. But, right below that statement is a graph that shows that, while the gap has changed very little, it has actually increased a little (and steadily) for over 15 years.
1
"This makes no economic sense": I'm not so sure. In the same way that you invest your money where you believe it's most likely to produce a profit, distributors of financial aid put their money where it's most likely to produce strong graduates who will make their almas matres shine, donate money, and draw in more good students. In fact, it would be irresponsible of them to do otherwise. What you must do to effect a redistribution is to show how the distribution you prefer is likely to produce better results. The only (non-soft-headed) argument that I've seen for this is civic responsibility, and while that's not meaningless, it's far from convincing. Our civic responsibility to ensure that we have another generation of smart and well-educated leaders, researchers, etc., seems much more clear-cut than our responsibility to help disadvantaged kids get through college. Like many people, I'm willing to be convinced; but no one has come close yet.
2
Thank you for the article, I have been trying to explain this to my best friend who is a talented Paris trained Hair Stylist with a 17 year old son who wants to be an engineer. Unfortunately, her exhusband refuses to pay beyond the court order or even meet all the obligations and no judge in Georgia ever orders college.
I have repeatedly explained to her that her son ending up one match away from the State finals in wrestling is a positive for him as a B student. He would never be the A+ 2400 Student.
She also misses the point that she is not a check mark for college educated on the form ( I have tried to tell her, it doesn't matter what they call it in Paris, I am not trying to insult you). I am trying to help the kid get in, as will checking other due to fathers Middle Eastern, Muslim name, let them guess. I have also begged to go to the accountant to get the self employed income down as low as possible this year. Then have repeatedly tried to explain that Private universities have more aid, and father away are looking for kids from different state. I want him close. There is a plane ticket to visit mama. let him go. ( I am an engineer)
Their is so much sabatoge from families of the working class. I encountered from my mother and siblings. Luckily, my father encouraged me to fly from the nest.
I have repeatedly explained to her that her son ending up one match away from the State finals in wrestling is a positive for him as a B student. He would never be the A+ 2400 Student.
She also misses the point that she is not a check mark for college educated on the form ( I have tried to tell her, it doesn't matter what they call it in Paris, I am not trying to insult you). I am trying to help the kid get in, as will checking other due to fathers Middle Eastern, Muslim name, let them guess. I have also begged to go to the accountant to get the self employed income down as low as possible this year. Then have repeatedly tried to explain that Private universities have more aid, and father away are looking for kids from different state. I want him close. There is a plane ticket to visit mama. let him go. ( I am an engineer)
Their is so much sabatoge from families of the working class. I encountered from my mother and siblings. Luckily, my father encouraged me to fly from the nest.
3
The kid should get a French passport and attend university in France or any other EU country.
5
"Is College Tuition Really Too High?"
Yes!! Insanely so. Compare it with other "developed" countries. They educate.
They don't look to squeeze a profit out of every student. Many educate their young for FREE.
Next question?
Yes!! Insanely so. Compare it with other "developed" countries. They educate.
They don't look to squeeze a profit out of every student. Many educate their young for FREE.
Next question?
9
"Scott Walker successfully cut $250 million from Wisconsin’s budget for higher education." I'm not sure what this sentence is intended to mean. Yes, Scott Walker succeeded in getting his tame legislature to pass a budget that cuts $250 million from University of Wisconsin. The budget goes into effect in October (next month). Will the cut be beneficial? Is that what "successful" means? Or will the cut result in the best faculty members leaving. Would that be successful?
On the matter of tenure, which so many Republicans and "school reform" grifters oppose, is it a bad thing to require that an employer, after a period of probation and evaluation, be required to present reasons for firing an employee? I know corporate America loves them some "at will" employment, where they can fire anyone anytime for any reason or no reason, but is that really something we want?
On the matter of tenure, which so many Republicans and "school reform" grifters oppose, is it a bad thing to require that an employer, after a period of probation and evaluation, be required to present reasons for firing an employee? I know corporate America loves them some "at will" employment, where they can fire anyone anytime for any reason or no reason, but is that really something we want?
11
The fact that forty million Americans are in student debt loan is unacceptable. In this generation, the idea and concept of college has changed drastically over the course of many years. Colleges can now be described as strategic businesses who markets themselves accordingly in order to extract student's income. Isn't the main value of attending college is to receive an education to become a decent individual to contribute to society? The question that needs to be asked is "Why has the tuition been raised and is still be raised every year?"
2
One cause for the cost explosion is that the universities examine each other's pricing and conclude, if our peers charge more, we shall also be able to charge more.
Two years ago, the University of Virginia commissioned an assessment from an outside consultancy for roughly half a million dollars to help with the development of its new strategic plan.
One conclusion was that there was still 'depth' in the market, allowing the university to raise tuition, which they promptly did. The other astounding conclusion was that the university had lost the race for federal government research dollars against its peers and might forego investment on this avenue. The labs are emptying.
source: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/local/university-of-virginia-asses...
Two years ago, the University of Virginia commissioned an assessment from an outside consultancy for roughly half a million dollars to help with the development of its new strategic plan.
One conclusion was that there was still 'depth' in the market, allowing the university to raise tuition, which they promptly did. The other astounding conclusion was that the university had lost the race for federal government research dollars against its peers and might forego investment on this avenue. The labs are emptying.
source: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/local/university-of-virginia-asses...
3
Why? Because universities offer luxe dormitory "suites", multiple restaurant facilities rather than a cafeteria, state of the art fitness/recreational facilities and expensive edifices to replace campus buildings that are themselves only 20 years old. Administrator's salaries and benefits are outrageous.
This applies to non-profit as well as for profit universities.
This applies to non-profit as well as for profit universities.
1
One problem this article doesn't address is the number of students who have to pay college tuition for remedial classes. Even at a low cost community college, remediation gets expensive quickly, and further prolongs the time to graduation. Perhaps high schools that give diplomas to students who are grossly unprepared for college should be forced to pay for the necessary remediation classes.
11
How much of this problem is related to creeping credentialism? By his is meant the widely held belief that to engage in a particular activity for financial gain one must be academically qualified. There are a large number of " professions" such as farming, forestry, and banking in which the mere demonstration of competence, however obtained , should suffice. Instead, we require a college degree, bought at enormous cost and frequently irrelevant to the job at hand.
As a practicing forester I can us sure you that three of the four years spent in becoming academically qualified bear no relevance to the duties at hand. Sure it's dandy when everyone knows the meaning of "counsel" is different from "council" but is the attendant debt and lost time really worth the cost to us all?
As a practicing forester I can us sure you that three of the four years spent in becoming academically qualified bear no relevance to the duties at hand. Sure it's dandy when everyone knows the meaning of "counsel" is different from "council" but is the attendant debt and lost time really worth the cost to us all?
8
And so another apologia on behalf of Big Education and the student debt cartel from the upper-middle-class editorial claque of The New York Times.
Some facts from the Federal Reserve and other recognized sources:
Student loan debt has tripled in the past decade to its current $1.3 TRILLION dollar level.
There are now FORTY MILLION Americans with student loan debt. That's not your neighbor's oddball nephew with a master's degree who won't (can't) get a job: It's nearly one in eight people in the country.
TWO THIRDS of all student loan debt is held by people over the age of thirty.
The number of people on Social Security who are having their payments garnished for decades-old student loan debt has increased nearly ONE THOUSAND PERCENT in the past decade.
Over SIXTY PERCENT of all student debt is not being repaid as contracted: It is either in delinquency, deferment/forbearance, or outright default.
Student loan debt is the only unsecured federal debt for which there are no bankruptcy protections. Why? Because no one in Congress is politically suicidal enough to put farmers with delinquent/defaulted Ag loans, veterans with VA loans, or small business owners with SBA loans through the same torment and unyielding collection scheme that the Department of Education has unleashed on student borrowers.
This is not going to end well.
Some facts from the Federal Reserve and other recognized sources:
Student loan debt has tripled in the past decade to its current $1.3 TRILLION dollar level.
There are now FORTY MILLION Americans with student loan debt. That's not your neighbor's oddball nephew with a master's degree who won't (can't) get a job: It's nearly one in eight people in the country.
TWO THIRDS of all student loan debt is held by people over the age of thirty.
The number of people on Social Security who are having their payments garnished for decades-old student loan debt has increased nearly ONE THOUSAND PERCENT in the past decade.
Over SIXTY PERCENT of all student debt is not being repaid as contracted: It is either in delinquency, deferment/forbearance, or outright default.
Student loan debt is the only unsecured federal debt for which there are no bankruptcy protections. Why? Because no one in Congress is politically suicidal enough to put farmers with delinquent/defaulted Ag loans, veterans with VA loans, or small business owners with SBA loans through the same torment and unyielding collection scheme that the Department of Education has unleashed on student borrowers.
This is not going to end well.
13
Well, actually, student debt can't be discharged in bankruptcy because Joe Biden wrote that into the "reform" law the Republicans passed with strong Democrat support back in 2005. That's one of the reasons I wonder why the people demanding Biden run think he could get votes. I don't believe there are that many Democratic voters to the right of Hillary. Hillary is pretty far right already, which is why Bernie is doing so well.
2
Thank you Jason. Exactly. Another apologia from the upper middle class (upper end of it) for a fantasy nightmare they have been denying for three decades. Those of us who started living this way back when are still struggling to force the county to look at real numbers.
Mostly what I was told at the University of California in the late 1980's was this was most normal and I was "complaining." Well, now folks who sit in a tech induced fantasy insulated by maybe a little luck, mostly inheritance, are going to start hearing the noises louder and louder. No, it's not ending nice.
Mostly what I was told at the University of California in the late 1980's was this was most normal and I was "complaining." Well, now folks who sit in a tech induced fantasy insulated by maybe a little luck, mostly inheritance, are going to start hearing the noises louder and louder. No, it's not ending nice.
I contacted a professor at UCLA who has published very heavily in his field to express my interest in studying with him as a PhD student.
I looked up the admissions criteria and found that I easily qualified (Hooray). Then, I looked up the price of tuition. Realizing the utter impossibility of paying the cost, I looked into other scholarships, TAships, etc., but none of them were remotely close to being able to cover the extremely high cost of studies.
I guess I will never do my PhD at a tier one American university. I will never be able to afford to. Thankfully, Canada also has lots of decent universities, and there I qualify for public support if I choose to pursue a PhD.
As for online schools: I think a lot of people (myself being one of them) enter them for the purpose of taking just a few courses, and never intended to graduate. I don't think the statistics should be such a cause for concern as brick and mortar schools.
I looked up the admissions criteria and found that I easily qualified (Hooray). Then, I looked up the price of tuition. Realizing the utter impossibility of paying the cost, I looked into other scholarships, TAships, etc., but none of them were remotely close to being able to cover the extremely high cost of studies.
I guess I will never do my PhD at a tier one American university. I will never be able to afford to. Thankfully, Canada also has lots of decent universities, and there I qualify for public support if I choose to pursue a PhD.
As for online schools: I think a lot of people (myself being one of them) enter them for the purpose of taking just a few courses, and never intended to graduate. I don't think the statistics should be such a cause for concern as brick and mortar schools.
If a school wants you, they will pay you to get your PhD there while teaching. If they haven't offered you a stipend that you can live on, it's a signal that they don't really want you.
5
Dude is correct. The psych department where I worked ten years ago promised graduate students five years of support at about $30,000.- per year. The professor had to pay the tuition and fees.
5
I wonder if you are misunderstanding the financial situation for graduate students. At a school like UCLA I wouldn't think any PhD student in the sciences would pay tuition himself/herself. The tuition would be effectively paid by the faculty member or the university. Science PhD students would be supported a combination of teaching assistantships (where your salary comes from the university and tuition is waived) and research assistantships (where your salary and tuition are paid for by your faculty advisor through his/her grant funds). In the humanities and social sciences it might be different, but at many top universities those students are now covered by internal funds. I would really look into making sure you understand how PhD students are supported. The tuition rate on paper may not be what students actually pay.
If you are accepted into a program that supports most of their students, but you are told that you are different and won't get support (sometimes this happens), that's a sign that you should apply to a different program that is a better match for you and wants you more.
If you are accepted into a program that supports most of their students, but you are told that you are different and won't get support (sometimes this happens), that's a sign that you should apply to a different program that is a better match for you and wants you more.
The American Education system, like the American Healthcare system, seems more and more to be a money grab for a lot of people who have little to nothing to do with Education or Healthcare. They've both long ago become for-profit Industries. Many Third World countries do a better with both. It seems that the target has become one of a country that has a population of mostly minimum wage earning slaves. It appears to be working.
10
The analysis of strong private colleges blocking funding for public ones is highly flawed. SUNY has whatever merits it has because of state funding policies now, not 100 years ago, and Stonybrook has an excellent computer science program.
More telling against your argument, CUNY had the most Nobel Laureates of any institution in the world. The downgrading of CUNY happened in the 60s with open admission. Social promotion, not Columbia killed the golden goose.
More telling against your argument, CUNY had the most Nobel Laureates of any institution in the world. The downgrading of CUNY happened in the 60s with open admission. Social promotion, not Columbia killed the golden goose.
10
It would be nice if colleges used the increased tuition revenue to provide more scholarships to needy students, but they haven't. Instead the money has gone to more and higher paid administrators, select professors who rarely teach (and certainly not undergraduates) and lavish facilities.
There is a direct correlation between increased student loans and increased college tuition. Get rid of the loans and colleges will be forces to adapt or close (as many, particularly the for-profits, should.)
There is a direct correlation between increased student loans and increased college tuition. Get rid of the loans and colleges will be forces to adapt or close (as many, particularly the for-profits, should.)
4
This article is based on fantasy. The costs have been driven up by government financial assistance which allows the institution to charge more to some rather than have a fair price for all and scholarships for exemplary students. In addition the overall cost of college has been driven up by the attempt to compete for students and their dollars, leading to more spending on non-academics, like gyms, dorms, etcetera. I speak as a former Professor of English from a top their university. It's all in the FAFSA. This in tern leads to more debt funding educations and fueling the financial services business. It had become a nightmare to see what has happened to education in this country.
5
You have made a good point: the financial services industry has taken over the student loan business; the universities have somehow joined in this enterprise. There should be no middle man in student loans. The university can offer grants and loans. Finally, the bloated administrative costs are outrageous. When I attended UC Berkeley, we had a Chancellor and a vice-Chancellor; we had Deans of Schools; we had professors and teaching assistants. There was one Administration Building which housed all of the administrators. There was a Chancellor's office in a liberal arts building. I have no idea how the administration of a campus with 27,000 students grew to where it is now. There are still 27,000 students at UC; there are still the same Schools of Engineering, Liberal Arts, et al. There is still a Board of Regents; perhaps the Board ought to look at its administrative bloat.
Education is a primary right! I believe that higher education should be accessible to people who bear the potential. Not only for their own evolution, but also for the society they are contributing to.
As a European I've always been shocked about the high American tuition rates for people people entering prestigious colleagues. Without being perceived as the European socialist who says that it is the government's responsibility to provide education to its people, I gradually see that European countries are leaning toward the American way of what education should be. And that is for the happy few, not to say the most promising.
Young people who enter colleague should be regarded as fully participating individuals in society. That is to say, that society values their opinions, that students are seen as the new thinkers, and can and will contribute to society. People know that their opinions will shape the future of their lives and acknowledge that education is a primary source to move a society forwards.
Education should not be an elitist right, but should be shown as a universally acknowledged right for people to develop their talents. Of course, we should give the most talented amongst us the opportunity to develop their expertise in specialised institutions. However, societal standards should not be measured against the diversity universities should and could bring to a society that wants to evolve to a new future.
Jan Kuijken, Brussels
As a European I've always been shocked about the high American tuition rates for people people entering prestigious colleagues. Without being perceived as the European socialist who says that it is the government's responsibility to provide education to its people, I gradually see that European countries are leaning toward the American way of what education should be. And that is for the happy few, not to say the most promising.
Young people who enter colleague should be regarded as fully participating individuals in society. That is to say, that society values their opinions, that students are seen as the new thinkers, and can and will contribute to society. People know that their opinions will shape the future of their lives and acknowledge that education is a primary source to move a society forwards.
Education should not be an elitist right, but should be shown as a universally acknowledged right for people to develop their talents. Of course, we should give the most talented amongst us the opportunity to develop their expertise in specialised institutions. However, societal standards should not be measured against the diversity universities should and could bring to a society that wants to evolve to a new future.
Jan Kuijken, Brussels
7
This has to be one of the stupidest things America has ever done. Total annual federal spending on higher education is about 1/30th of what the country wasted in the bungled Iraq invasion which created ISIS. Higher education is one of the few areas where America still leads the world, and it is being hung out to dry in order to save peanuts within the federal budget. Higher education is not a hell-bent secretive foreign military escapade. There are dozens of ways to help ensure that federal spending on colleges and university is used efficiently. Ignoring such possibilities, and allowing college tuition to spiral to levels astronomically above that of most other countries, out of a foolishly false sense of economy, has to rank at least as high on the Mass Idiocy scale as handgun worship, fear of mass transit, and denial of science.
18
RandH2: There are public universities which provide excellent educational and research opportunities, and fine professors. You made a choice to enroll your son in an expensive private institution. When my daughter graduated from a private high school in SF, we chose to send her to UC Berkeley. We did not choose to send her to Stanford. She graduated Summa and went on to work for Levi Strauss in Europe. My husband graduated from Boalt Law at UC Berkeley, and went on to a career with Bechtel Corp.; he negotiated contracts in Alaska, Europe and the Middle East. There is no reason to go into debt to afford a private Ivy League university. MIT might be worth it; Harvard, Yale and Princeton are not.
Went to college in the 1980s - tuition, room and board, and fees were around $20,000 per year for a non-HYP Ivy.
Now my son is going to an excellent private university, and like many we looked at including my alma mater, the cost is around $65,000 per year.
Yet the cost of textbooks is not that bad. Back in the 1980s, textbooks were often over $100, and some were closer to $200. Nowadays there are eBook for $50 and used texts galore for near that, and if you really must use the university bookstore, maybe $250 for the most expensive textbooks.
What really galls me is that his university received a whopping, as in the most money ever in a single anonymous donation, grant, and they STILL are really really expensive, with financial aid 80% of what FAFSA says he should get.
For most kids, college is not worth it. For my son, it is, but it hurts an awful lot. We will go from having paid off our mortgage to owing 80% of our house after sending three children to college. Is that the point - to destroy middle-class families?
Now my son is going to an excellent private university, and like many we looked at including my alma mater, the cost is around $65,000 per year.
Yet the cost of textbooks is not that bad. Back in the 1980s, textbooks were often over $100, and some were closer to $200. Nowadays there are eBook for $50 and used texts galore for near that, and if you really must use the university bookstore, maybe $250 for the most expensive textbooks.
What really galls me is that his university received a whopping, as in the most money ever in a single anonymous donation, grant, and they STILL are really really expensive, with financial aid 80% of what FAFSA says he should get.
For most kids, college is not worth it. For my son, it is, but it hurts an awful lot. We will go from having paid off our mortgage to owing 80% of our house after sending three children to college. Is that the point - to destroy middle-class families?
10
Yeah, I went to RPI also. Good school, but sorry not worth the money. Go to 1 of the state schools, much better value.
I can understand some of your points, but I wondered why college is not worth it for most kids but it is for your son. I also wondered why you have not considered state schools or two years at a community college followed by two years at a state school rather than an expense private school given the economic toll it is taking on your family.
If the cost of education keeps rising... why do we talk about increasing student loan issuance, lowering their rates or forgiving them outright? I know politicians like to court votes and giving stuff away for free is one way to do it... but the cheaper you make debt for students, the more expensive colleges will make degrees. Colleges that raise price according to ability to pay should not be rewarded and politicians should not encourage it.
8
No, it doesn't really matter what one means by college. Is college tuition to high?
Yes.
Yes.
1
I have a difficult time why anyone does not understand the roots of the education crisis in this country. The lessons are there if you look back at the history of U.S. education in the Post-WWII era.
My father could never have afforded attend either undergraduate or medical school as a very child of the Great Depression Era. He would have been relegated to being an electrician (not that there is anything wrong with that trade) rather than a talented surgeon. Thank goodness he survived WWII (the Battle of Midway) and received the V.A. bill. He left medical school with no debt and without the financial stress of anything other than feeding his family (which was not an easy thing to manage even as a young surgeon).
Fast forward to the 1970s. The government steps in and offers to guarantee student loans, so students can go to financial institutions and borrow the money at outrageous rates of interest (8%). Rather than make rates low, or just have the government pay for higher education as in Europe, or at the very least based on one's ability to pay a small portion of the education (assuming your family was not rich).
Universities saw a chance to get on this gravy train. Student loans were a also a boon to the financial industry. Moreover, businessmen started for-profit colleges and trade schools without anything other than a "promise" that their students would prosper from the education.
Now we have $1 Trillion in student loan debt . . . any questions?!?
My father could never have afforded attend either undergraduate or medical school as a very child of the Great Depression Era. He would have been relegated to being an electrician (not that there is anything wrong with that trade) rather than a talented surgeon. Thank goodness he survived WWII (the Battle of Midway) and received the V.A. bill. He left medical school with no debt and without the financial stress of anything other than feeding his family (which was not an easy thing to manage even as a young surgeon).
Fast forward to the 1970s. The government steps in and offers to guarantee student loans, so students can go to financial institutions and borrow the money at outrageous rates of interest (8%). Rather than make rates low, or just have the government pay for higher education as in Europe, or at the very least based on one's ability to pay a small portion of the education (assuming your family was not rich).
Universities saw a chance to get on this gravy train. Student loans were a also a boon to the financial industry. Moreover, businessmen started for-profit colleges and trade schools without anything other than a "promise" that their students would prosper from the education.
Now we have $1 Trillion in student loan debt . . . any questions?!?
5
Better use and more support of community colleges are probably the best investments of additional public funds in post secondary education. Graduating more students from two year programs and keeping weaker students from starting out in four year colleges would produce the best result per additional dollar spent. Overall, the graduation rate from four year colleges, save from the most elite institutions, is abysmal. There are obviously a lot of students starting four year colleges that just shouldn't be there.
4
Unless you are rich or get a free ride to Harvard or Yale, no private college is worth the cost.
Live at home, drive your parent's old car, go to a community college for the first two years, then transfer to your state university, which in New York costs $7000 a year.
The idea that college should be a wonderful four years filled with amazing experiences is a relatively new fantasy, as college used to be seen as a means to a better life, not the pinnacle of life itself.
Live at home, drive your parent's old car, go to a community college for the first two years, then transfer to your state university, which in New York costs $7000 a year.
The idea that college should be a wonderful four years filled with amazing experiences is a relatively new fantasy, as college used to be seen as a means to a better life, not the pinnacle of life itself.
11
It may surprise you to learn this, but there are often better scholars at more prestigious universities, and talented students from all backgrounds often do well there. The solution is to get more students to attend such universities, not fewer on the basis of these old-fashioned prejudices.
"...he great national crisis is..that too many..young adults are not going to college or, if they do, don’t graduate.."
Sadly, the national crisis is far worse than the author perceives: It's that college has dumbed down America all the way to K-12.
I know all this because I'm a former professor. I have seen it up close and personal. (The sordid details are on my blog inside-higher-ed )
Here is a summary of how it happens.
Some well-known professor/careerist/operator gets a large government grant to produce "American" Ph.Ds. Because nobody is watching (Well, his colleagues are, but he brings in money and power, so...) he can produce all the faux-PhDs he wants. (When I say "faux", I do mean "faux". Look for examples on my blog. Also, this is not a "one-off" case. It's been happening for decades. Remember Sputnik and catching the Russians?)
These faux-PhDs (no fault of their own) go on to become "professors" at state regional schools where many future teachers go to learn. But the future teachers don't learn; they have no chance with these unqualified professors.
So then high school gets worse faster than college, so a college degree pays for any individual - but the process doesn't. It has put our country on a vicious downward cycle that is destroying our society, politically, economically and socially.
Is tuition too high? The cost of not getting an education - all the way from k-12 to college - is what is too high - for all of us.
Sadly, the national crisis is far worse than the author perceives: It's that college has dumbed down America all the way to K-12.
I know all this because I'm a former professor. I have seen it up close and personal. (The sordid details are on my blog inside-higher-ed )
Here is a summary of how it happens.
Some well-known professor/careerist/operator gets a large government grant to produce "American" Ph.Ds. Because nobody is watching (Well, his colleagues are, but he brings in money and power, so...) he can produce all the faux-PhDs he wants. (When I say "faux", I do mean "faux". Look for examples on my blog. Also, this is not a "one-off" case. It's been happening for decades. Remember Sputnik and catching the Russians?)
These faux-PhDs (no fault of their own) go on to become "professors" at state regional schools where many future teachers go to learn. But the future teachers don't learn; they have no chance with these unqualified professors.
So then high school gets worse faster than college, so a college degree pays for any individual - but the process doesn't. It has put our country on a vicious downward cycle that is destroying our society, politically, economically and socially.
Is tuition too high? The cost of not getting an education - all the way from k-12 to college - is what is too high - for all of us.
8
This is an interesting analysis, but it seems to have left out a few items:
1. There doesn't seem to be any discussion of not-for-profit private schools who are not the author's "blue chip schools." Where do they and their students fit into this analysis?
2. What effect do the skyrocketing salaries and increasing numbers of university administrators of all stripes have on the cost of college?
3. If top tier private and public institutions don't need help from taxpayers, why are they and their students getting it? Shouldn't we be focusing taxpayer support on those schools enrolling students who don't have other support available?
1. There doesn't seem to be any discussion of not-for-profit private schools who are not the author's "blue chip schools." Where do they and their students fit into this analysis?
2. What effect do the skyrocketing salaries and increasing numbers of university administrators of all stripes have on the cost of college?
3. If top tier private and public institutions don't need help from taxpayers, why are they and their students getting it? Shouldn't we be focusing taxpayer support on those schools enrolling students who don't have other support available?
4
In summary, for public universities, 40 years ago tax payers paid 65-80% of costs; today 16-35%. Today president salaries are sky high with golden parachutes gleaming. Plus, two or three tiers of highly paid consultants have been added to the the admin. Search committees used to be handled by admin and faculty. Long range plans were hashed out by admin, boards, and faculty who knew the institution and region, not by highly paid folks not from the area who have never spent a day teaching. The list of "new" admin is extremely long (and mostly unnecessary).
The shortfall is covered by increased tuition, more faculty grants (demanded before tenure), gifts (sometimes self serving corporate driven), and alum. Not a workable system.
The shortfall is covered by increased tuition, more faculty grants (demanded before tenure), gifts (sometimes self serving corporate driven), and alum. Not a workable system.
12
Go to a community college for two years; then transfer to a state university for your degree. End of discussion.
3
Did you read the article? One of the important points is that this sort of conventional wisdom is not worth very much. A student with the academic strength and systems knowledge needed to successfully do that could probably get into a selective private school with good financial aid, where, unless their parents are very wealthy, they would pay much less. Meanwhile, too many students without the solid educational foundation and essential systems knowledge are attempting to follow your advice, attending schools that can't give them adequate financial or ancillary support. In the long run, these students will pay far more than they would if they could go to an elite school, which must be especially painful when they are forced to drop out without the benefit of a degree.
2
Adam Davidson highlights the sheer power of education; stating that educated societies are more stable and educated workers increase economic growth. However, with the rising costs of higher education, many college-bound youths are not going or not finishing due to their inability to afford the luxury price tag. I am appalled at this reality.
Higher education should not be thought of nor marketed as a luxury product. I am outraged by the inconsistent distribution of aid and the extreme budget cuts made by state governments. Higher education should be considered an attainable step in life that can increase awareness and expand productivity. Education has some of the greatest influence on the growth of the nation’s economy. So why does it make sense to discourage pursuing higher education by making it less accessible to the nation’s youth? It simply does not.
Higher education should not be thought of nor marketed as a luxury product. I am outraged by the inconsistent distribution of aid and the extreme budget cuts made by state governments. Higher education should be considered an attainable step in life that can increase awareness and expand productivity. Education has some of the greatest influence on the growth of the nation’s economy. So why does it make sense to discourage pursuing higher education by making it less accessible to the nation’s youth? It simply does not.
5
State divestment has indeed increased the cost of college, but perhaps that's because public priorities are being neglected by academia. Administrative and capital expenses have risen dramatically over the past two decades, yet the number of full-time faculty instructors has reached an all-time low. Colleges are neglecting education and instead investing in lazy rivers, massive diversity apparatuses, and luxury dorm rooms. UC Davis, for example, is raising tuition by 25% over the next five years while, in addition to the statewide diversity apparatus, maintaining a Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, the Chancellor's Diversity Office, the Associate Vice Chancellor for Faculty Equity, the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Faculty Equity, Chief Diversity Officer, the Director of Development for Diversity Initiatives, the Office of Academic Diversity and Equal Opportunity, and the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center.
While reasonable people can disagree about the necessity of the positions above, I suspect that most would agree that they're second to full-time instructors in terms of importance, yet 76 percent of college instructors are in non-tenure-track positions. And programs in which instruction is being expanded are often heavily politicized majors with high graduation rates. The University of Alaska Anchorage, for example, is expanding Theatre and Dance, Women's Studies, and Sociology while eliminating Chemistry and Economics programs.
While reasonable people can disagree about the necessity of the positions above, I suspect that most would agree that they're second to full-time instructors in terms of importance, yet 76 percent of college instructors are in non-tenure-track positions. And programs in which instruction is being expanded are often heavily politicized majors with high graduation rates. The University of Alaska Anchorage, for example, is expanding Theatre and Dance, Women's Studies, and Sociology while eliminating Chemistry and Economics programs.
6
As to administrative cost, the Richmond Times - Dispatch recently published last year's salaries for the employees of the commonwealth of Virginia. Sixteen of the state's top 25 earners, making more than $450,000.-, were academic executive officers.
source: http://data.richmond.com/salaries/2014/state
The commonwealth had commissioned a study last year examining spending increases at its public four-year colleges and universities. The main drivers of tuition were expenditures not directly related to instruction.
source: http://www.richmond.com/pdf_61d7a032-d1fc-11e2-b4a3-0019bb30f31a.html
According to the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission's report "Spending and Staffing for Activities Other Than Direct Instruction Has Averaged About Two-Thirds of Total" expenditure per student.
Some academic officers hold tenured professorships in addition to their administrative duties. For example the President of the University of Virginia Teresa Sullivan holds an appointment as Professor of Sociology at a salary of $175,000.-. How much time do you think a president of a 30,000-student university can spare for the classroom?
source: http://data.richmond.com/salaries/2014/state
The commonwealth had commissioned a study last year examining spending increases at its public four-year colleges and universities. The main drivers of tuition were expenditures not directly related to instruction.
source: http://www.richmond.com/pdf_61d7a032-d1fc-11e2-b4a3-0019bb30f31a.html
According to the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission's report "Spending and Staffing for Activities Other Than Direct Instruction Has Averaged About Two-Thirds of Total" expenditure per student.
Some academic officers hold tenured professorships in addition to their administrative duties. For example the President of the University of Virginia Teresa Sullivan holds an appointment as Professor of Sociology at a salary of $175,000.-. How much time do you think a president of a 30,000-student university can spare for the classroom?
22
A post secondary education has long been viewed as the primary way of getting into a profession that allows you entrance into the middle and upper middle classes. During the Reagan years tuition increases started to outpace the wage increases necessary to support the college merry-go-round. Rather than tackle the problem head on, the rising costs of education, that Administration and succeeding ones elected to deal with the ability to pay for it. The easiest solution was to expand the student loan industry to what it is today, even to the point where the institution makes money off the poor student who is forced to finance their entire education. While the pool of college age students has declined, the number of administrators have increased multi-fold putting an upward pricing pressure on the degree without improving the product in the classroom. That in my mind is criminal. Once there is a quality internet based option, (how many lectures really require physical attendance in order to be effective) those administratively top heavy universities will have a serious wake up call. I hope it is sooner rather than later.
1
I don't understand this: "Like hotels and apartment buildings, for example, colleges and universities own expensive real estate that is parceled out for use by paying customers; this means the overall rise in real estate costs have made running a university more expensive." Can someone explain how tax-free land that a university (in MA) has sat on 100 or more years drives up the cost of education? I get there are new buildings, but come on...What am I missing?
12
Some universities own land around the campus that they use for leases to condo and business developers. Your hotel near campus may be built on university land. The institutions reap quite some revenue from such enterprise.
3
If you are working, supporting yourself or contributing to your support, it is hard to take a full course load that will graduate you in four years. Working students should be respected for their desire and efforts to stay in school, even when they don't graduate in that magic four year limitation.
They push through chronic exhaustion to continue to go to classes. Their extra-curricular activities consisting of going to work and paying their bills. They are pretty much left out of the Ivy League level college "get a job through social contacts," even though they have pluck, perseverance, and have shown great can-do abilities.
The government should not tie so much funding to the level of four-year graduates from educational institutions.
A broader, more realistic perspective is needed.
They push through chronic exhaustion to continue to go to classes. Their extra-curricular activities consisting of going to work and paying their bills. They are pretty much left out of the Ivy League level college "get a job through social contacts," even though they have pluck, perseverance, and have shown great can-do abilities.
The government should not tie so much funding to the level of four-year graduates from educational institutions.
A broader, more realistic perspective is needed.
13
An important big data point in graduation rates within 6 years is the increased number of disabled students attending public community colleges and universities. My son, who who is blind and visually impaired, will take much longer than a neurotypical student to finish an AA or undergraduate degree.
Our family's experience with special needs populations makes us highly sensitive to both visible and invisible disabled learners. These learners attend higher education in record numbers thanks to years of parent advocacy at all levels of education. Disability needs to be an important discussion point in any look at higher education. The cost of not educating these students is high with long term expenses to taxpayers and charities. All numbers associated with disabilities need to be part of articles like this one.
It is easy to educate a smart, motivated, middle class student. Ask any public school treacher or higher edu faculty member. Dealing with poverty, lack of connections and self-advocacy, and many types of disabilities--not so easy for the educator.
In the meantime, I fear that our Virginia Community Colleges and the many good but not "universitas elitas" may be penalized for not shoving everyone through at the same rate. It is not good education practice and is not evidence-based except on the level of "lite" statistical analysis. But yet these articles appear on almost a daily basis.
Our family's experience with special needs populations makes us highly sensitive to both visible and invisible disabled learners. These learners attend higher education in record numbers thanks to years of parent advocacy at all levels of education. Disability needs to be an important discussion point in any look at higher education. The cost of not educating these students is high with long term expenses to taxpayers and charities. All numbers associated with disabilities need to be part of articles like this one.
It is easy to educate a smart, motivated, middle class student. Ask any public school treacher or higher edu faculty member. Dealing with poverty, lack of connections and self-advocacy, and many types of disabilities--not so easy for the educator.
In the meantime, I fear that our Virginia Community Colleges and the many good but not "universitas elitas" may be penalized for not shoving everyone through at the same rate. It is not good education practice and is not evidence-based except on the level of "lite" statistical analysis. But yet these articles appear on almost a daily basis.
3
September 9, 2015
Mr. Jake Silverstein
Editor-in-Chief
The New York Times Magazine
620 8th Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Dear Editor-in-Chief Silverstein:
It was most encouraging to read about important studies that verify the inspiring success that CUNY’s ASAP program is demonstrating by significantly improving community college graduation rates in “Is College Tuition Really Too High?” (Magazine, Sept. 13, 2015). The author did a great service to educators everywhere by highlighting the results of this initiative. Please note these other points of clarification: There is only one City University of New York (not “universities”) and CUNY is not just a community college or community school system. CUNY comprises 24 institutions: 11 senior colleges, seven community colleges, The William E. Macaulay Honors College at CUNY, The CUNY Graduate School and University Center, The CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, The CUNY School of Law, The CUNY School of Professional Studies and The CUNY School of Public Health. The new CUNY School of Medicine received accreditation from the Liaison Committee on Medical Education this summer and will open in 2016.
Sincerely,
Jay Hershenson, Senior Vice Chancellor for University Relations and Secretary of the Board of Trustees
The City University of New York
Cc: Mr. Adam Davidson
Mr. Jake Silverstein
Editor-in-Chief
The New York Times Magazine
620 8th Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Dear Editor-in-Chief Silverstein:
It was most encouraging to read about important studies that verify the inspiring success that CUNY’s ASAP program is demonstrating by significantly improving community college graduation rates in “Is College Tuition Really Too High?” (Magazine, Sept. 13, 2015). The author did a great service to educators everywhere by highlighting the results of this initiative. Please note these other points of clarification: There is only one City University of New York (not “universities”) and CUNY is not just a community college or community school system. CUNY comprises 24 institutions: 11 senior colleges, seven community colleges, The William E. Macaulay Honors College at CUNY, The CUNY Graduate School and University Center, The CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, The CUNY School of Law, The CUNY School of Professional Studies and The CUNY School of Public Health. The new CUNY School of Medicine received accreditation from the Liaison Committee on Medical Education this summer and will open in 2016.
Sincerely,
Jay Hershenson, Senior Vice Chancellor for University Relations and Secretary of the Board of Trustees
The City University of New York
Cc: Mr. Adam Davidson
2
What's even more infuriating is the lack of accountability from these institutions. In a society mired with inequality we have to ask ourselves: is education a means to an end or an end itself? What is the promise of an education? Students are graduating right into unemployment, not due to limited jobs, but limited skills. After 4-5 years in college, these students are released into a labor market where they have no skills to sell. I continue to be appalled by the career services offered by public and private institutions, which seem to be just a couple of personality and career tests, and resume workshops. There really is no planning or employment services to ensure that there is a job. What is even more sad is that we have young people of color, who are immensely talented, funneled into private and public schools who struggle, but graduate and then are left to explain to their families and community why they are unemployed or underemployed. This is the sad state of education we have in the United States.
2
If a student is not smart enough to research the jobs in their chosen field before going to college, they should not be going.
There were no 'career services' for generations, yet students still knew not to major in Art or Poetry, as there have also been no jobs in those field for generations.
There were no 'career services' for generations, yet students still knew not to major in Art or Poetry, as there have also been no jobs in those field for generations.
1
"Scott Walker successfully cut $250 million from Wisconsin's budget for higher education."
Successfully? I mean he achieved a desired result, but I would say he misappropriated money from education to a pair of wealthy team owners
They took $250 million from higher education to put towards a stadium for a team that could well afford the stadium, but threatened to move if the team did not get one financed in part by taxpayers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/scott-walker-approves-spending-25...
Successfully? I mean he achieved a desired result, but I would say he misappropriated money from education to a pair of wealthy team owners
They took $250 million from higher education to put towards a stadium for a team that could well afford the stadium, but threatened to move if the team did not get one financed in part by taxpayers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/scott-walker-approves-spending-25...
35
Articles like this offer an insight into why the education establishment is failing miserably in addressing our problems with higher education. #1 There isn't a single word about containing costs per se. The entire discussion centers on how to either shift the costs from one group to another or how to increase government subsidy. #2 The notion of individual motivation is completely absent. It may sound like dirty capitalist rhetoric but the reality is that if you're going to succeed you need to make your product affordable and you need to motivate the consumer.
1
So, the basic premise is that colleges and universities absolutely need their pricing to be hidden until you are well down the rabbit hole? Or it won't maintain its worth?
Wow. Sounds like the pricing of medical care, at least in the US. That sure works well for consumers, eh?
And even more unfair for public universities, whose rationale for existence was to provide truly affordable college options for citizens of their home states and communities. Maybe UMich and UCal should concentrate their efforts and resources at home.
Wow. Sounds like the pricing of medical care, at least in the US. That sure works well for consumers, eh?
And even more unfair for public universities, whose rationale for existence was to provide truly affordable college options for citizens of their home states and communities. Maybe UMich and UCal should concentrate their efforts and resources at home.
6
At 17, I moved out of my parents house and started at Community College on my own dime. I worked full-time and went to school at night working toward University admission. Taking a couple of classes at a time, it took almost five years before I could transfer to a major State University. After three more years of working and going to school, and with the help of student loans (at 8% APR), I received my baccalaureate. It took another 10 years to pay off my loans. I made a lot a friends along the way; many of which failed to graduate despite their having parents with deep pockets. My point here is that for most of us, working toward a college degree is not the easiest life path; nor should it be. A degree is not simply a reflection of ones education, but a reflection of ones work ethic and tenacity to achieve a difficult, long-term goal. If you really want it, it's there. No one ever said it would (or should) be easy.
6
If only parents knew that their kids were spending their precious tuition dollars surfing Facebook, shopping online, and browsing Pinterest rather than paying attention in class.
Swing by a lecture at your local college and sit in the back row if you think I'm joking.
Swing by a lecture at your local college and sit in the back row if you think I'm joking.
13
Absolutely true that professors should generally ban laptops and cell phone use in class.
Administrative bloat is driving a lot of this. I looked at the org chart for "Institutional Diversity" at a state school and counted 24 position. Who knows what their total budget is. Getting rid of silly stuff like that would save millions.
5
The University of California is increasing tuition by 25% over the next five years. No savings could be found anywhere, as all of the following positions were essential. Aside from the UC President's (UCP) staff listed at the top, each campus has its own diversity apparatus. I used UC-Davis (UCD) as an example. This list is by no means complete and captures less than 1/3 of the staff within the diversity machine:
UCOP Office of Diversity and Engagement (excluding non-executives)
- Vice Provost and Chief Outreach Officer: $200,000
- Executive Director, Partnerships, Teaching and Leadership: $160,000
- Director, Information Management and Analytics: $119,000
- Director, College Access and Preparation: $110,000
UC Davis - School of Medicine
- Associate Vice Chancellor Diversity, and Inclusion: $378,000
- Associate Dean, Office of Student and Resident Diversity: $371,000
- Manager, Office of Student and Resident Diversity: $112,000
- Manager, HR Equal Opportunity and Diversity: $202,000
- Analyst, HR Equal Opportunity and Diversity: $110,000
UC Davis
- Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs and Campus Diversity: $247,000
- Human Resources Director of Diversity and Inclusion: $122,000
- Associate Executive Vice Chancellor, Community Diversity Education: $175,000
- Campus Climate and Community Outreach Coordinator: $100,000
- Director, Office of Academic Diversity and Equal Opportunity: $114,000
- Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Equity and Inclusion: $172,000
UCOP Office of Diversity and Engagement (excluding non-executives)
- Vice Provost and Chief Outreach Officer: $200,000
- Executive Director, Partnerships, Teaching and Leadership: $160,000
- Director, Information Management and Analytics: $119,000
- Director, College Access and Preparation: $110,000
UC Davis - School of Medicine
- Associate Vice Chancellor Diversity, and Inclusion: $378,000
- Associate Dean, Office of Student and Resident Diversity: $371,000
- Manager, Office of Student and Resident Diversity: $112,000
- Manager, HR Equal Opportunity and Diversity: $202,000
- Analyst, HR Equal Opportunity and Diversity: $110,000
UC Davis
- Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs and Campus Diversity: $247,000
- Human Resources Director of Diversity and Inclusion: $122,000
- Associate Executive Vice Chancellor, Community Diversity Education: $175,000
- Campus Climate and Community Outreach Coordinator: $100,000
- Director, Office of Academic Diversity and Equal Opportunity: $114,000
- Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Equity and Inclusion: $172,000
"According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the average bill at the top-tier schools is just over $50,000 a year. Yet these schools spend considerably more than $100,000 a year educating each student, with the difference made up from government funds, grants, alumni gifts and their often-huge endowments. " I must admit, this strikes me as highly dubious. How was that 100.000 dollar figure generated? If running costs are just divided by student, that doesn't tell us that 100 gs were spent per student, just that the cost of maintenance and labor and administration come out to that figure. In fact, I wonder how much administration costs have to do with educating the student at all. When you have 500,000 dollar per year president/ceos of colleges, which are now common, no value added creeps down to the student, and little to the researcher or professor. I would love to see the stats on the average compensation of the public and private college president in 1974 and 2014. Be eyeopening.
7
Jonas Salk got a free education from CCNY and look what he did with it.
5
The London nightclub analogy doesn't work for me. The result of high pricing for anything is that the product or service becomes more "exclusive" and out of reach for most. Fewer people will go there and fewer people will apply, especially those who cannot pay the price. Colleges need less applications to sift through and high pricing is an effective way to do it. So exclusive nightclub owners let in sexy young ladies free to attract wealthy male customers who spend lots of money. It is the wealthy male customers these clubs want and these guys aren't exactly looking for diversity are they? How does that relate to colleges putting a large pricetag on their education to supposedly lure more diverse and excellent students? The real analogy would be if the nightclub thought that putting a large cost on the entrance fee for their club would make it more likely that lots of sexy young ladies would go there. Maybe that is the case too. But regardless, diversity isn't what these nightclubs are going for or grandmothers, homosexual men, sexy athletic dudes and homeless people would also be let in free. (I bet you anything those sexy athletic dudes are the last people the club would let in for free.)
3
If the government and the bankers had not colluded with the colleges and universities over the last few decades to offer students unprecedented amounts of aid, maybe tuition and fees would not be so out of whack with the rest of the economy. The idea that they are not high enough is absurd. And if you add the cost of the ASAP program to the average $8,000 in aid to community college students, the number is close to the averages for other students. I think ASAP is a laudable program, with impressive results, but it's not cheap.
There is no supportable reason why college costs have risen so dramatically in the last 30 years, far outpacing inflation and income gains. Many middle and upper middle income college parents can't afford to send their kids to the colleges they went to, regardless of aid packages. And really, who wants their kids coming out with huge debt and dubious employment options after four years (the average debt figure quoted seems awfully low based on my experience).
For me, having seen three kids through college, the answer is a resounding YES!, college tuition really is too high. Even the fact that state legislatures have cut funding doesn't account for the rise. Only the prevalence of government and private lending does that. Telling me college is affordable because parents and students can assume mountains of debt is all part of the Big Lie.
There is no supportable reason why college costs have risen so dramatically in the last 30 years, far outpacing inflation and income gains. Many middle and upper middle income college parents can't afford to send their kids to the colleges they went to, regardless of aid packages. And really, who wants their kids coming out with huge debt and dubious employment options after four years (the average debt figure quoted seems awfully low based on my experience).
For me, having seen three kids through college, the answer is a resounding YES!, college tuition really is too high. Even the fact that state legislatures have cut funding doesn't account for the rise. Only the prevalence of government and private lending does that. Telling me college is affordable because parents and students can assume mountains of debt is all part of the Big Lie.
10
There is so much to applaud in this, my complaint may be thought to be trivial but I think not.
"The powerful private schools lobbied politicians to keep public institutions underfunded."
Doubtless, some did; but state legislators eager to find places to cut, even in prosperous times, and highly attuned to anything on a state campus they did not like, from outright scandals to controversial subjects, speakers, and teachers, have happily reduced the resources for education. Sometimes they even call it "education reform."
We elect them to be responsible stewards of public funds. Cutting education at any level is irresponsible.
"The powerful private schools lobbied politicians to keep public institutions underfunded."
Doubtless, some did; but state legislators eager to find places to cut, even in prosperous times, and highly attuned to anything on a state campus they did not like, from outright scandals to controversial subjects, speakers, and teachers, have happily reduced the resources for education. Sometimes they even call it "education reform."
We elect them to be responsible stewards of public funds. Cutting education at any level is irresponsible.
3
There are many sides to this issue. I can't shake the personal perspective - with modest GPA and SATs, I was fortunate enough to get into a SUNY college, get educated, worked, and proceeded to law school. I had the great fortune of attending when tuition was cheap, education solid and graduated without loans. No fancy gym, grounds were muddy, dorms circa 1960 (clean and functional), food definitely edible, but not extravagant. Since then, I've supported the state and nation by paying taxes. With the same position today, I couldn't get into my undergrad (requires near 4.0 average), couldn't afford law school, and might be able to contribute to society as a custodial worker (worthy and needed jobs, but not nearly the same tax contribution potential). We have a problem, we need an educated nation that isn't crushed with unshakable debt. Stop trying to run state schools like private schools - give a solid education, a modest environment, let kids get educated without requiring them to be Westinghouse scholars before entry. Bring back the manufacturing base, rebuild our infrastructure - save the world.
Simple, right?
Simple, right?
35
Look at the level of state spending when you were in school vs now. When I entered the U California in 1966 fees were $78- because the state paid for 90% of the UC budget. My kid entered UC in 2006 for about $10k, because state funding provided about 10% of the UC budget.
Pay for Profs, secretaries, grounds folk, grad students have all been lagging US norms, poaching has begun. I really do not know how the state budget got this way....
Pay for Profs, secretaries, grounds folk, grad students have all been lagging US norms, poaching has begun. I really do not know how the state budget got this way....
1
Going to college is not the same thing as learning professional skills that can support of life of employment. Trade and craft schools should be an important part of that mix. You can't assume that the salary benefits of current university graduates will apply equally to everyone which seems unlikely. So support the ASAP program, but it should be monitored closely to see if and how the benefits decrease as it scales.
2
when colleges and universities have endowments in the billions, when schools regularly buy up land and add gymnasiums, maid service (even valet parking at a school such as monmouth), then the prices heaped upon the middle class is too great, period. I have a had children at public and private schools and the message is that if you have been a responsible parent and able to save some money, ALL of th emoney you have saved has to be spent before you get any financial aid (which is usually just a 6-8% loan). There needs to be some wiggle room for places like harvard? Harvard's endowment would pay for every single students tuition for many years. isn't free enough to offer just the best students? In the meantime, middle class families save 4-5 years of earnings JUST to pay tuition for one child. But this is not a case of buying a Chevy instead of a Cadillac. The institutions should help a diverse student body, they should include scholarships to those less fortunate, but they don't have to become giant corporations by breaking the backs of middle class. These institutions are not just educational, but also provide individuals with contacts and relationships that serve a lifetime. No wonder the elites of our society want to make sure that there is always room for those who can afford full tuition. If tuition were free and the university could pick and choose only the most qualified students, the children of the very rich might lose out.
6
While tuition paid by students is one thing, I would have appreciated an explanation of how much it actually costs universities to educate students. I understand that the physical sciences require expensive labs and equipment, but for non-science types, their minimum requirements are teachers, a classrooms, and a decent library. Even adding necessary administrative and other educational support should not raise costs into the stratosphere for non-science students.
2
Ah, but don't forget the gyms, the climbing walls, the indoor hockey rinks, the fancy dorms, the Olympic swimming pools, and all the other country club accoutrements.
1
I think this article skims over the issue of student debt. While it might be true that only a small percentage of students pay the true "sticker price", much of the financial aid that is received by others is mostly in the form of loans that must be paid back. Yet again this is disadvantageous to all but the wealthy. My husband is from Sweden where college tuition is free. Social mobility is excellent there because anyone with the grades and drive can get into the best university. It works too. I lived there for a while and can attest to the fact that their education system is top notch. You don't need a system to supposedly attract the students you want by slapping a phony and exorbitant sticker price on your college. You won't necessarily get the best students that way. In fact, most students won't even apply as they will correctly see it as out of their price range. This means that the pool of students the colleges have to choose from is actually far less than it would be otherwise. This is but one of the many ludicrous ways our country wastes its talent. In addition, not every useful and necessary job in this country requires a college degree. We need a better highschool system for those whose skills and interests are of value in other less academic lines of work. It used to be that you could get a decent paying job with a high school degree. That is no longer true.
12
America is nation of immigrants, while Sweden has been a homogenous society for millennia.
Let us know how it goes in Sweden now that this is changing.
Let us know how it goes in Sweden now that this is changing.
Unless your ego thinks it's cool to have an association with some university, any cost-benefit analysis of today's absurd tuition costs will only drive more youth to become autodidacts. It's that old marketing scam - higher prices and smaller packaging.
1
This completely ignores a basic economic factor; subsidies push prices of any good or service higher. Many studies have confirmed this.
2
The costs are grossly excessive.
Over 1000 FREE online college course are now available from eminently respectable universities, such as Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford and top state universities. There are exams, and there are means to assure academic integrity.
All we need is an accredited institution willing to accept credit earned in this way towards a degree--despite their fear of cannibalizing existing revenue.
As Brown already did decades ago, they can forget General Education requirements and forget the requirement of a major. Evidently, it's been conclusively proven by now that neither is integral to a valid bachelor's degree. They can also forget admissions requirements, which are now completely pointless. Let students start with one course and see what they can do--without having to give up their jobs.
The online resources didn't exist five years ago. Now they do.
It's shameful to charge tens of thousands of dollars for students to sit in classrooms and get an inferior education--or none.
Over 1000 FREE online college course are now available from eminently respectable universities, such as Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford and top state universities. There are exams, and there are means to assure academic integrity.
All we need is an accredited institution willing to accept credit earned in this way towards a degree--despite their fear of cannibalizing existing revenue.
As Brown already did decades ago, they can forget General Education requirements and forget the requirement of a major. Evidently, it's been conclusively proven by now that neither is integral to a valid bachelor's degree. They can also forget admissions requirements, which are now completely pointless. Let students start with one course and see what they can do--without having to give up their jobs.
The online resources didn't exist five years ago. Now they do.
It's shameful to charge tens of thousands of dollars for students to sit in classrooms and get an inferior education--or none.
1
The tuition cost could be managed, if more emphasis is placed on education and educators, which needs to be the purpose of college.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32821678
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32821678
2
The observation that students who go to private non-profit schools receive $25,000 per year in aid while those in less-selective public campuses receive $13,500, while stark, understates the actual disparity. The tax exempt status of the richest campuses in the nation generate far more subsidies than these direct numbers imply. A recent study I did, "Rich Schools, Poor Students," shows that per student tax expenditures top $100,000 per year at Princeton and are more than $50,000 for students at Stanford and Yale. (Harvard students receive "only" $48,000.) This doesn't count the value of the tax exemption for property (Stanford has over $8 billion, yes with a "b", in tax exempt property in Santa Clara county). In turn, the unequal distribution of endowment wealth compounds the problems noted in this excellent analysis. You can find the study at: http://www.air.org/resource/rich-schools-poor-students-tapping-large-uni...
2
The additional issue is that the amount of education required to practice in specific fields has increased and therefore the cost of getting the education has also increased. An example is physical therapy where a PhD is now the credential needed to secure most jobs. In the past a Master's degree or in some cases even a BS was sufficient. Not only does the inflation of needed credentials add to the debt load but it also subtracts from the number of years working in the credentialed field.
5
I agree in general with the article, but I think it's dangerous to assume that the obstacles to a successful college education for many families is just financial. Poorer and less educated students are often not academically and culturally prepared for college. They drop out both because of financial issues but also because they are struggling academically, feel uncomfortable socially, don't see the long term benefits when a decent paying job can be had right away, or just don't like it. There is an issue of academically prepared students graduating saddled with debt, and a *separate* issue of un-academically prepared students not graduating at all, or not graduating with the full benefit of the degree PLUS debt. Instead of just providing more funding for that second group, we need to figure out how to beef up K-12 for them and then how to better support them in college itself. I say this as the child of two college professors and the wife of a guy who dropped out of community college - while his parents were paying for it.
5
"Yet these schools spend considerably more than $100,000 a year educating each student, with the difference made up from government funds, grants, alumni gifts and their often-huge endowments. "
This contention needs explanation. US research universities support themselves substantially with federal agency research grants that pay not only for the cost of the research material, but also for the salaries of principal investigators, that is the professors leading the research, research associates and research assistants. Furthermore, the hosting institution recovers indirect cost for plant ops, infrastructure improvements and administration. This can be another 70 cents and more on the direct research dollar.
Even at mega-universities like OSU, the revenue from federally funded research equals that from student tuition. According to the Washington Post, Johns-Hopkins University crossed the billion dollar mark in federal research funding last year. Income from tuition must remain paltry in comparison, and I doubt strongly that undergraduate students benefit much from this revenue, unless they actively seek out research participation.
It only takes a count of the biomedical research buildings that have sprung up on your campus in the past fifteen years to realize how existentially research universities depend on the federal tax payer's dollar. Elite universities have become contractors to the government. The undergraduate experience plays second fiddle.
This contention needs explanation. US research universities support themselves substantially with federal agency research grants that pay not only for the cost of the research material, but also for the salaries of principal investigators, that is the professors leading the research, research associates and research assistants. Furthermore, the hosting institution recovers indirect cost for plant ops, infrastructure improvements and administration. This can be another 70 cents and more on the direct research dollar.
Even at mega-universities like OSU, the revenue from federally funded research equals that from student tuition. According to the Washington Post, Johns-Hopkins University crossed the billion dollar mark in federal research funding last year. Income from tuition must remain paltry in comparison, and I doubt strongly that undergraduate students benefit much from this revenue, unless they actively seek out research participation.
It only takes a count of the biomedical research buildings that have sprung up on your campus in the past fifteen years to realize how existentially research universities depend on the federal tax payer's dollar. Elite universities have become contractors to the government. The undergraduate experience plays second fiddle.
1
Does the subsidizing of state schools by state governments model still work where graduates move around so much? The article states: "This [model] expands a state’s economy and generates enough tax revenue to more than pay back the initial outlay on education." But which state economy is benefited by the subsidy? The state where a graduate uses his/her education may not be the one that paid for it.
2
Wondering where the vast array of non-selective, yet also nonprofit private colleges fit into this rubric? I am guessing tier 3, but curious that they are not mentioned there in this article. These are places such as Adelphi on Long Island, the Catholic school Siena College upstate, Adrian College in Michigan, or Lesley in Cambridge. There are a huge number of these places, some of which are quite expensive. They don't admit everyone, but come pretty close. Anyone have a thought about this type of school? Are they rip-offs, or worth the tuition? (I am skeptical that they offer, for many students, much bang for the buck, not to mention much real education ....)
1
The actually percentage of State spending on higher education is on average around 10% of a State's budget according to Tierney and Hentschke (John Hopkins 2007). The reason for the drop is increases in healthcare spending especially on Medicaid. So the key to increasing spending on public education is to reduce the high cost of healthcare, especially for those who have no insurance.
It seems the people left behind are, once again, the middle class. Students from low income families will qualify for financial aid while students from high income families can afford to pay for full tuition. It's the students from middle income families who are saddled with crippling loans or have no choice but to pass up their chance at a higher education because their parents cannot afford to pay for their tuition but they earn just enough to disqualify for financial aid.
6
Major piece missing here, that is a huge complicating factor and not relevant to the complicating factors raised here. Education is 100% different from any other product or service because it demands input FROM the "consumer" for it to work. Then, when that understanding falls apart as it does daily now, especially at higher levels probably, the demand and supply equation is completely thrown off. Schools used like vending machines cannot do their job of educating. Now, $$$ for nothing at all. Ripples through the system, internally and then outward to the economy, etc.
While this article has some useful insights, it also has some complete nonsense.
The most obvious one is the statement that an elite institution spends over $100K/year "educating" each student. This comes to $10K/class, or (given an average class size of 20) $200K per class. Many of these classes are taught by adjuncts who are paid $15K or less per class, or graduate students being paid even less. The cost of the use of a room for such a class for a grand total of about 50 hours, is on the order of $5K or less. A professor with no external funding (e.g. for research) teaching four classes per year and making $100K-200K (loaded cost) costs $25-50K at most. So where is the other $150K of "cost" coming from?
The answer is that the university is counting lots of other things in this cost that have nothing to do with "educating" the student.
The most obvious one is the statement that an elite institution spends over $100K/year "educating" each student. This comes to $10K/class, or (given an average class size of 20) $200K per class. Many of these classes are taught by adjuncts who are paid $15K or less per class, or graduate students being paid even less. The cost of the use of a room for such a class for a grand total of about 50 hours, is on the order of $5K or less. A professor with no external funding (e.g. for research) teaching four classes per year and making $100K-200K (loaded cost) costs $25-50K at most. So where is the other $150K of "cost" coming from?
The answer is that the university is counting lots of other things in this cost that have nothing to do with "educating" the student.
4
Well, yes, they are including the cost of running the various libraries, equipping labs, running the art museum and the music auditorium, providing theater space, providing chapels and spaces for religious worship, maintaining the grounds, providing housing and cafeterias, providing career counseling and academic advisement, maintaining sports teams and extracurricular activities, running lecture series, inviting speakers and guest artists, maintaining a gym complex, running a health center and psychological services, running an alumni network, etc. Since these are all services that students use and even depend on it makes sense to include them in the overall costs. Which is not to say that some of these costs might be too extravagant. But they are currently the norm, especially at elite schools.
I followed a plumbing company truck down the highway yesterday and noted the sign on the back that read, "Plumbers Needed." I thought about what I know about plumbers and wondered why there is apparently a shortage where I live. As far as I can tell, it looks like a good career: high fees, reasonable working hours (they usually end their day at 3:00 or 3:30 pm), and high need from the market.
Why don't we have in place support for more young people to pursue worthy trades?
Why don't we have in place support for more young people to pursue worthy trades?
1
Just a couple of days ago I ran into a young man who walks dogs in my neighborhood. Great guy, late 20s, eager to start a family. Also struggling through community college, not quite sure why he was there. I asked him if he had thought of going into a skilled trade. He had, and was interested - but didn't know how to get on that path. He asked me if I could help, and so I've been doing some digging around. I am someone with an advanced degree who reads organizational websites regularly for my work - and I was pretty lost at first. I finally was able to point him, I hope, in a useful direction. But, it shouldn't be this hard!
The problem of American Higher education system and Skill development of majority of post secondary students are different. The first two University groups are providing Higher education to drive innovation and creativity and the bottom third group is providing Skill development. The objective and purpose of these three groups are different and clientele also distinct. The current policies of funding these institutions are faulty. Skill development should be free for all candidates as this is an economic infrastructure like road and airport. Germany, Singapore - countries that handled this problem better, separated the post secondary students on this separate streams. State should fund the skill development projects and recover the cost through greater GDP growth and tax collections. The most elite university system is working based on market forces and does need any change. The second group of Public universities need help and expansion. As these are mostly State universities, some amount of common core type of planning, measurement and mandate is required. Currently few state is doing well, few are falling behind.
If only it was really this simple. There are some great ideas here, especially more support for students at risk like those at CUNY. But there are some stunning blind points. Too many doctoral programs from English to Astrophysics and now even law, lure students into disciplines were there are far more graduates than jobs. Highly competitive schools have improved their graduation rates, but they still can burn out students. Student loan programs are trapping too many people in deep debt that can block them from starting businesses or families. And nobody can seem to pin down why college costs have soared so much more than other expenses.
1
"...it’s useful to start with some figures from 40 years ago..." Indeed it is. Now, let's look at what that tuition got you then vs. now.
To see what you get, start with the fact that the present gain in critical skills is next to nothing. Forty years ago the gain was one sigma. In other words, critical thinking test scores used to rise from the 50 percentile to the 84th percentile. Now it rises to about the 57th percentile. (From the "Academically Adrift" by Arum and Roksa.)
Anyway you use those figures, the numbers should be disturbing, but maybe not to student "consumers". After all, the professors only require them to work about 60% as much as before - and they learn more, something validated by the grades the professors give out. (Again, see "Academically Adrift".)
To see what you get, start with the fact that the present gain in critical skills is next to nothing. Forty years ago the gain was one sigma. In other words, critical thinking test scores used to rise from the 50 percentile to the 84th percentile. Now it rises to about the 57th percentile. (From the "Academically Adrift" by Arum and Roksa.)
Anyway you use those figures, the numbers should be disturbing, but maybe not to student "consumers". After all, the professors only require them to work about 60% as much as before - and they learn more, something validated by the grades the professors give out. (Again, see "Academically Adrift".)
1
The exceptions in the book (which I recommend despite being pretty leaden in style) were the small number of elite colleges where students still had to read and write a minimal number of books and papers. It was something like 100 reading pages a week and 20 pages of writing per semester. Sadly, few students were asked to do this. (Can't recall how math and science courses fit into this measurement.) Those students who met this were the only ones who measurably improved. And the more they read and wrote, the better the improvement. After reading this, I immediately contacted my daughter in college and confirmed that she was meeting this standard - and was relieved to hear she was, and then some.
I don't have a problem with a student dropping out of a community college after a year or two if the tuition at those colleges is cheap and if the student has learned something during his time there.
I do object to students taking out loans to pay exorbitant for-profit tuition costs because they have been scammed by good marketing. There needs to be some better regulation.
I do object to students taking out loans to pay exorbitant for-profit tuition costs because they have been scammed by good marketing. There needs to be some better regulation.
4
A BLOATED BUREAUCRACY ! This describes the education system in the USA today. I propose beginning with high schools. If a student doesn't want to be in school (poor attendance, poor grades, disruptive behavior) then that person should go to work at age 16. Perhaps after a few years of slinging hamburgers or digging ditches they will have a different view of education. We are turning out graduates who are almost illiterate and have little value to the job market. America, we are wasting a LOT of taxpayer money. I would prefer a smaller student body with higher quality. It is a fallacy that everyone should go to college. I taught at the college level for over 40 years and it is distressing to see the decline of education in this country.
3
Although amenities was given a short mention, the enormous investment in recreational facilities, dorms, and educational hardware like computers and high tech instruments in the sciences and engineering stand out.
This weekend I returned to my alma mater, Northwestern University, and was stunned at the enormous changes that had ensued in the fifty years since I graduated. Students demand and expect it, and it's a big part of marketing...just look at the web sites.
On the other hand, governors like Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal are determined to wreck higher education in their states to show how tough they are on the sniveling elete, and how dumbing down education fits with the GOP plan to play on the ignorance of their base who continue to applaud while wealth flows from them to the wealthy.
This weekend I returned to my alma mater, Northwestern University, and was stunned at the enormous changes that had ensued in the fifty years since I graduated. Students demand and expect it, and it's a big part of marketing...just look at the web sites.
On the other hand, governors like Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal are determined to wreck higher education in their states to show how tough they are on the sniveling elete, and how dumbing down education fits with the GOP plan to play on the ignorance of their base who continue to applaud while wealth flows from them to the wealthy.
6
Perhaps someone can explain how the $100,000/year total cost for educating students at an elite college is computed. Are all professor salaries and facilities costs counted in this number? If so, this is extremely misleading, as much of a professors time is spent on research that is paid for by the government, private foundations, and corporations.
This research, while it is essential to the university and the nations knowledge infrastructure and provides benefits to others is not really a cost of educating the students.
I am a bit suspicious because "government grants" are listed as one of the additional source of income for the school.
This research, while it is essential to the university and the nations knowledge infrastructure and provides benefits to others is not really a cost of educating the students.
I am a bit suspicious because "government grants" are listed as one of the additional source of income for the school.
Why precisely is it misleading? Many thanks.
Interesting, but this leaves out an analysis of what the schools are actually spending money on. Anyone looking at a modern university will see expensive gymnasiums, swimming pools, over-the-top locker rooms for the pampered football players, and the like. This has nothing whatsoever to do with education, and more to do with the governance of the universities -- these are ego-driven projects that do not, in the end, contribute to a quality education. Let's not forget million -- and yes, multi-million -- dollar salaries for university presidents and coaches. This whole system is corrupt to the core and emphasizes personal aggrandizement -- on the behalf of university presidents, chairmen, and coaches, as well as athletes who are quasi-professional -- at the expense of the average student who finds him or herself stuck in something resembling servitude to pay back these absurdly large loans.
Market forces? Ok, but why are we applying market dynamics to education? It doesn't belong there. Education is not a commodity. Unfortunately, the forces-that-be have almost succeeded 100% at making it just that, to the detriment of our citizenry.
Market forces? Ok, but why are we applying market dynamics to education? It doesn't belong there. Education is not a commodity. Unfortunately, the forces-that-be have almost succeeded 100% at making it just that, to the detriment of our citizenry.
1
Something is very wrong when other nations can make university education available to their young citizens at prices they can afford, and we cannot. Glaring example: Check the origin of the dentists, physicians and surgeons in your own community and notice how many (who qualify here) received their university education in their native lands. How many are from India, Pakistan, The Phillippines, China, etc? Those countries can afford to educate a surplus of doctors, dentists, engineers, etc. and our own young people cannot not afford equivalent education here? Something is very, very wrong!
4
Excellent piece, I learned a lot. A couple of observations about the cost of tuition. I thought that the reason why tuition keeps climbing is simply because, for the elite schools in particular, demand is inelastic to price. Like utility service, this means that if the price goes up, demand won't go down because buyers perceive no substitute. And to a great extent that perception is real: back in the early 70s, when tuition was far less costly (even adjusted for inflation), there were viable alternatives to a college degree. Like a union-protected, high-wage, high-benefit job at a steel plant. A review of Milton Rogovin's photographs of Buffalo steelworkers from the 70s through the closures of the 80s illustrates, in the most human and poignant terms, how those jobs supported prosperous lifestyles, and how rapidly, and tragically, it ended. So today, if the only path to a comfortable lifestyle is a college degree, naturally the price will rise, and students will pay it. If they can.
2
Absent from the article: comparisons from decades ago on the cost of administration vs today. And what about the cost of all these perks offered to incoming freshman, such as luxury dorms, state-of-the-art athletic facilities and sports programs that are total money losers? The economics of a college degree is more complex than just looking at tuitiion. However, this article did it's job in offering good statistics and some historical perspective.
1
At what point is our population over-educated? When's the diminishing returns of education going to be to start to kick in?
I'm all for more education and ensuring our brightest and best get the tools they need, but I honestly think this increased focus on higher education is just a weak feint for the overall inequality problem, a problem that would require faaar more political will.
I'm all for more education and ensuring our brightest and best get the tools they need, but I honestly think this increased focus on higher education is just a weak feint for the overall inequality problem, a problem that would require faaar more political will.
Fifty years ago I received a BA, MA, PhD, and JD for free. Scholarships and Fellowships were the answer.
Fifty years ago, before the Educational Testing Service started juking the stats and turning a "600" score into a "700" score, and too many colleges and universities saw higher education as a business, and nothing more, tuition was reasonable.
As the car salesmen say, "Need a new car? Don't worry, everybody's got credit."
Fifty years ago, before the Educational Testing Service started juking the stats and turning a "600" score into a "700" score, and too many colleges and universities saw higher education as a business, and nothing more, tuition was reasonable.
As the car salesmen say, "Need a new car? Don't worry, everybody's got credit."
2
Yet another reference to a "high school degree" -- in the New York Times no less. This not a linguistic option. You get a high school diploma, not a degree.
6
"Once students drop out of community college, taxpayers will continue to pay their bills..."
That may be your experience; it is not mine. I've yet to meet more than a handful of fellow students at my Community College who are working as hard as possible to not only attend, but to Pay As You Go....eliminating the cost of loans. Takes longer? Yes....but in the end, it's that much sweeter.
That may be your experience; it is not mine. I've yet to meet more than a handful of fellow students at my Community College who are working as hard as possible to not only attend, but to Pay As You Go....eliminating the cost of loans. Takes longer? Yes....but in the end, it's that much sweeter.
1
Problem with the analysis of the ASAP program: it's not clear if the students in the program benefited from the "mandatory" help with "rough patches" or from the financial help with tuition, fees, and transport. My community college students often have trouble completing classes because they are forced to work multiple jobs that interfere with their ability to do classwork. I'd like to see a program that focuses solely on one variable at a time--finances OR academic intervention--to see what the most important factor is.
ALSO: My community college receives funding based on the number of graduates we have. However, our most successful students transfer to four-year institutions (of which there are many locally) without getting a degree from us. This creates a vicious circle of funding that makes the overall financial picture even worse.
In short, it seems to me after many years of teaching that the biggest problems for students on the low end of the economic scale and for the colleges they attend are economic.
ALSO: My community college receives funding based on the number of graduates we have. However, our most successful students transfer to four-year institutions (of which there are many locally) without getting a degree from us. This creates a vicious circle of funding that makes the overall financial picture even worse.
In short, it seems to me after many years of teaching that the biggest problems for students on the low end of the economic scale and for the colleges they attend are economic.
3
Median American family income is $52,000 but elite colleges spend well over $100,000 per student. Something doesn't make sense. Where does that money go?
1
There are two additional factors that have exacerbated the reduced funding to state schools.
First, the short-term thinking of politicians looking for a quick fix to this year's budget. Because the detrimental economic effects of a degraded education system won't be obvious for years, they can claim their actions are saving money. This is similar to CEOs who destroy their business in order to boost their bonus.
Second, much of the increased spending at universities is to comply with a steady stream of government mandated programs that are unfounded. The difference has to come from other aspects of the university's mission, usually undergraduate education. One of the routine hypocrisies is seeing state legislators decrying increased tuition when they are the very people who are ultimately responsible.
First, the short-term thinking of politicians looking for a quick fix to this year's budget. Because the detrimental economic effects of a degraded education system won't be obvious for years, they can claim their actions are saving money. This is similar to CEOs who destroy their business in order to boost their bonus.
Second, much of the increased spending at universities is to comply with a steady stream of government mandated programs that are unfounded. The difference has to come from other aspects of the university's mission, usually undergraduate education. One of the routine hypocrisies is seeing state legislators decrying increased tuition when they are the very people who are ultimately responsible.
1
Here in Germany, there are three tiers of High School: Hauptschule (5 - 9 Grade), Realschule (5 - 10 Grade) and Gymansium (5 - 12 Grade). Graduation from the Gymnasium with your Abitur qualifies you to apply to a University. You can still get the Abitur if you went to the Realschule if you attend a Fachoberschule for 3 years. Many of the non-Gymansium students go into vocational training or apprenticeships to become a Meister in a particular vocation. Some just end up working normal jobs.
The University system here is relatively free (some administrative fees). The downside with the German Uni system is the somewhat inflexible nature with respect to changing majors or schools as well as flunking out. Second chances are hard to come by.
The University system here is relatively free (some administrative fees). The downside with the German Uni system is the somewhat inflexible nature with respect to changing majors or schools as well as flunking out. Second chances are hard to come by.
2
The article misses the elephant in the room question: Why does it cost US$100,000 per year to educate a child? As stated in the article. This cost makes no sense especially for the English majors mentioned in the article. Private teachers could be hired into the home to tutor the student privately for significantly less cost than this. So where is the money going? A pie chart of where costs go per university would put this into perspective. Which brings me to the second question - why is such an obvious analysis missing?
Its a cost problem, that is obvious. Since 75% of the cost is employee compensation that needs to be the issue. Most of that cost is supporting faculty that does not really do any teaching, since most actual teaching is outsourced to grad students. Recently I saw a video of a Harvard prof teaching a class of 1000 students in a theater. So, not only are we spending more, we get less.
The American system of education, as well as many in America today, is aimed at families who have wealth above the average. But how many such families in America we have? Especially, if we exclude the richest states of our sample, if we do that, we get a really disappointing figures.
"Generally, parents pay no more than 10 percent of their income. " That statement is simply untrue and patently false. Parents who make above $100,000 per year are more often than not asked to spend 50% of gross income toward tuition. These families don't qualify for financial aid and merit aid is no longer available at the "elite" schools for families making this amount or more.
1
This statement is in reference to a very small subset of schools. Ivy League, et al.
What about the cost of football stadiums and obscene salaries to football coaches? At some schools, the coaches make more than all the adjuncts (who do the actual teaching) put together. And the adjuncts--often with doctorates in their field--earn so little they could qualify for food stamps. The U.S. has its priorities bass-ackwards.
6
"According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the average bill at the top-tier schools is just over $50,000 a year. Yet these schools spend considerably more than $100,000 a year educating each student"
The crux of the problem is right here. First I really doubt the validity of that $100K that a school would spend on a student. Second that $50K is a ripoff, since an in-state tuition at UC Berkeley is $13K http://admissions.berkeley.edu/costofattendance
The crux of the problem is right here. First I really doubt the validity of that $100K that a school would spend on a student. Second that $50K is a ripoff, since an in-state tuition at UC Berkeley is $13K http://admissions.berkeley.edu/costofattendance
As the article points out, conservative lawmakers have convinced their constituencies that cutting public education makes sense.
They have sold them on the idea that cutting education budgets will somehow encourage businesses to add jobs because they will have less takes to pay.
I guess the logic of that last statement that I just typed can only be understood by someone who didn't get a chance to attend college because their state's lawmakers cut the education budget.
They have sold them on the idea that cutting education budgets will somehow encourage businesses to add jobs because they will have less takes to pay.
I guess the logic of that last statement that I just typed can only be understood by someone who didn't get a chance to attend college because their state's lawmakers cut the education budget.
The logic used by the schools, as described in this article, is in the wrong time order.
A rule I once heard is that you provide 1/3 of what you get out of a university education, the other students provide 1/3 and the school provides 1/3. So if the school wants to improve the selection of incoming students, it needs to have an excellent faculty and excellent educational facilities. The faculty and the facilities are expensive, but donors can help, in return for putting their names on buildings. The faculty are supposedly self-governing, so they can help improving their own standing and also attracting better students. But charging more then giving scholarships is a second step which can be done only after the school has a very good reputation. This takes a long time.
A rule I once heard is that you provide 1/3 of what you get out of a university education, the other students provide 1/3 and the school provides 1/3. So if the school wants to improve the selection of incoming students, it needs to have an excellent faculty and excellent educational facilities. The faculty and the facilities are expensive, but donors can help, in return for putting their names on buildings. The faculty are supposedly self-governing, so they can help improving their own standing and also attracting better students. But charging more then giving scholarships is a second step which can be done only after the school has a very good reputation. This takes a long time.
1
The article state that "Tuition at a private university is now roughly three times as expensive as it was in 1974, costing an average of $31,000 a year." If, as the article also states in the previous paragraph, private university tuition was "around $2,000 a year" in 1974, it's now many more than three times as expensive. About 15 times more expensive.
Real costs, adjusted for inflation during the last 41 years.
I received my A.A. from Chgo. and U of Il. I paid them off. Going to Loyola for my masters was a no joke bill. Still paying it off 25 years later and Social Work doesn't pay great. Is the title of this a joke?
1
The writer is a bit confused about the cost analysis. I found rest of the content to be interesting. According to him, the private college tuition fee per annum was $ 2000.00 in 1974, whereas the cost of the same in 2015 is said to be $ 31,000.00, which is 15.5 times the cost in 1974 and not three times. In the case of Public Colleges, the same is 17.6 times and not four times as mentioned in this article.
From this one can conclude how difficult it's for a middle class or for the first generation students to get graduated from college in America debt free. It's high time something concrete is done to drastically cut the cost of college education there.
From this one can conclude how difficult it's for a middle class or for the first generation students to get graduated from college in America debt free. It's high time something concrete is done to drastically cut the cost of college education there.
Sivaram,
The costs are adjusted for inflation during the last 41 years.
The costs are adjusted for inflation during the last 41 years.
One problem is that the Professors win grants to study College Tuition rather than to solve global water resource allocation.
But if the USA tax payer wants to get the biggest bang for their buck underwriting the expense of moving 21 M 18 -24 year olds through a higher level of training than the USA tax payer should pick and choose knowledge priorities too.
Students who study chemistry, biology, and engineering should get tuition payment credits. And the higher the grades in each of these disciplines, the more the credits should be too.
But if the USA tax payer wants to get the biggest bang for their buck underwriting the expense of moving 21 M 18 -24 year olds through a higher level of training than the USA tax payer should pick and choose knowledge priorities too.
Students who study chemistry, biology, and engineering should get tuition payment credits. And the higher the grades in each of these disciplines, the more the credits should be too.
This is a truly great, clearly explained essay. I am currently in graduate school focusing on this very topic. I did a presentation in class this very evening covering one of these points. Wow, I wish I could have laid everything out this clearly. Thank you so much!
The article does not really explain WHY college tuition has increased so much. I am a professor at a public university, and my salary (and in general faculty salaries) has just kept pace with inflation. It is becoming unaffordable for me to send MY kids to college. So, where is the money going?
Very interesting, particularly the pricing strategies of elite or selective US institutions, where many students with financial aid pay much less than others, and the brand is a vital consideration.
I hope Davidson follows this up with international comparisons. As EU residents, our daughter studies at Cambridge U and her degree will cost less than 1/3 what an equivalent one would in the US. For our son, who wishes to pursue a medical degree, we are looking to the UK, with Canada a distant second, and the US the far-and-away last choice.
It is a cost and quality calculation for us, but this is where you get into apples and oranges comparisons. In the UK, you enter uni with your "major" chosen and the undergraduate course is only 3 years. My son would go straight into medicine as an undergrad, just like a law student would, and followup with an apprenticeship-like training. Furthermore, at the top schools (Oxbridge and a few others), beyond the brand advantages, you get intensive contact with world-renowned profs, writing several essays for seminar-like discussions and active feedback. These are qualitative differences that statistics cannot easily capture.
I hope Davidson follows this up with international comparisons. As EU residents, our daughter studies at Cambridge U and her degree will cost less than 1/3 what an equivalent one would in the US. For our son, who wishes to pursue a medical degree, we are looking to the UK, with Canada a distant second, and the US the far-and-away last choice.
It is a cost and quality calculation for us, but this is where you get into apples and oranges comparisons. In the UK, you enter uni with your "major" chosen and the undergraduate course is only 3 years. My son would go straight into medicine as an undergrad, just like a law student would, and followup with an apprenticeship-like training. Furthermore, at the top schools (Oxbridge and a few others), beyond the brand advantages, you get intensive contact with world-renowned profs, writing several essays for seminar-like discussions and active feedback. These are qualitative differences that statistics cannot easily capture.
I think comparing the cost of college over the past half century isn't the right comparison. You need to compare the cost of qualifying for certain positions. In the 1950s and 60s you could find people working in management of banks and investment firms with high school diplomas, the cost of that education was free. In 1970 you could become an RN with an associate degree. Today you would need a four year degree and perhaps a MS to qualify for those same positions. State colleges, two or four year degrees should be free to allow the greatest upward mobility. Those who are already in debt, should have their debts principals and interest reduced to allow them a quicker rise through middle class. Tax dollars spent on education are a better investment than tax dollars spent on war preparations.
1
The author's conclusion illuminating how those who are in most need get the least help confirms the negligence behind cuts to public higher education. Public funded universities and community colleges are the best means for so many to get a deserved education. Yes, based on meritocracy, and not subversive division of the have and have not through financial restraints. Those who want to cut public education have an aversion to the distribution of 'my hard earned money'. As with so many examples of myopic scope, one forgets the broader consequences. Through higher education, we are then able to raise up more people to work in 'our' police stations, to become 'our' teachers, to be able to run businesses in 'our' communities, and to become 'our' leaders of tomorrow. Without the opportunity of higher education, we are swamped in the tyranny of ignorance, caught in the trap of poverty that is so much of America. No developed democracy sees as much disparity in health (viz. infant mortality), economic, and life expectancy disparity as America. Supporting public higher education for those who needs it most subjugates the proliferation of the already rich. This support will have profound long term benefits to this country.
One of things I appreciate most about my CAL Berkeley education was the cultural and economic diversity of the campus. Even if you don't go out of your way to cultivate contacts or friendships outside of your historical peer group, there are constant interactions (if at a distance) from which you learn people are more alike than different.
We may not be able to address xenophopia in the general US population, but if we can dispel it in our colleges, in the population that will become future leaders who will have not only to coexist with others but be called on to solve large social and economic problems with them.
Tax payer funding of public colleges and universities is not just about helping individuals. it's about providing society with resources in the form of ideas and people to bring us into a better future. Or at least a future that is not unintended or accidental.
We may not be able to address xenophopia in the general US population, but if we can dispel it in our colleges, in the population that will become future leaders who will have not only to coexist with others but be called on to solve large social and economic problems with them.
Tax payer funding of public colleges and universities is not just about helping individuals. it's about providing society with resources in the form of ideas and people to bring us into a better future. Or at least a future that is not unintended or accidental.
1
Education in the United States is exactly like Health Care in the United States, viz. a balkanized hodgepodge hamstrung by the
requirements of the various parasites who bleed it dry.
requirements of the various parasites who bleed it dry.
This article provides much insight about how the edu-industrial complex has continuously raised college tuition. Mr. Davidson mentions that states now provide far less funding. In California, tuition receipts for the UC system have exceeded State funding since 2011. The most recent available data show that State funding of the UC system represents 13% of the system budget, down from 32% 40 years ago. It’s also true that the demand for a college education is quite price inelastic (especially for “elite” colleges), which Mr. Davidson doesn’t mention. My blog, Coping with College, [http://pathfinderbruce.blogspot.com/] mentions it’s not at all clear that the income premium that holders of a college degree have enjoyed will be sustainable as more and more young people gain a baccalaureate degree. If U.S. economic growth maintains its historically-unimpressive sub-4% level and college grads represent an ever-increasing proportion of people entering the workforce, having a B.A. will become less “distinctive” when they’re first on the job market. As we’ve already seen, employers have adjusted their hiring practices and requirements. Some jobs that heretofore didn’t require a college degree now do. Also, many recent college graduates have found work only in lower-level jobs that may not require a degree, and thus are underemployed. The underemployment rate for 21-24 years old is currently 14.9%, more than double the 7.2% overall unemployment rate for this age-group.
Intel backing out of a good idea. Could it be about copywrite law? Just guessing but as many swifter are going to be asking. Why?
This is an informative article but missing a more in depth discussion on increasing university tuition that is rising at a rate higher than inflation. I believe that the reasons for cost increase for top tier and bottom tier universities are very different. The cost increase of top tier universities may be partly due to "product" improvement: smaller class size, better facility, etc. The cost increase of bottom tier university probably reflect the irresponsible cutback by the states. For many for-profit universities, I think that greed and profit-taking are factors. The challenge is how to make universities more affordable for more people without damaging the best universities that have remain the best in the world and the innovation and economic engines of this country. Leading universities are well aware of this problem and are looking into innovative solutions that may make high quality education more democratic; a promising example is interactive, high quality, low cost, on-line education.
1
One important unsaid thing. The draft.
Until 1973, going to a private school meant a draft deferment that was priceless to many males. Going to a public school meant commissioning as an officer upon graduation, for physically fit males, along with the deferment. Rich males stayed away from that deal.
Everything changed when the draft ended!
Until 1973, going to a private school meant a draft deferment that was priceless to many males. Going to a public school meant commissioning as an officer upon graduation, for physically fit males, along with the deferment. Rich males stayed away from that deal.
Everything changed when the draft ended!
1
Is the title of this article a joke? OF COURSE IT'S TOO HIGH!
2
In other words -- the Rich get Richer is even more amplified in the college race, and the ivy wannabes are not only wasting their money, youth and time, for superfluous education, unemployment and debt, but they are also, in their yearning for the unattainable, (that inside connection that only an ivy degree can make), further widening the divide, making the acceptance rates of the ivies go into the low single digits and the sign-on salaries for ivy grads at the Wall Street firms rise to the high six digits?
1
Every time the US Gov't tries to do good by giving more financial aid and guarantee loans, it sets up a bureaucracy with the petty bureaucrats that run it and turn finacial aid, loans and assistance into a business and an overblown finacial aid office at the colleges and universities. Unless you strip all finacial aid, except for the truly needed and gifted you will never see an end to higher tuition prices. It is already accepted as the norm and graduating with debt is non productive. When I left college in June of 1974, I was straddled with no debt, I paid everything from my GI Bill and lived off my VA pension. Then the company I went to work for paid for 75% of my masters degree which I completed at night. Today there is not the same GI Bill and my pension would not cover my living expenses in Wash DC where I went to school. Everything is a business today, no finacial aid and the price of education falls rapidly
1
No wonder there are so few comments: the article rambles and at many points, is a turn-off. "Huge amounts of information about them are readily available to consumers, so it is very unlikely that any of them could deceive potential students about the benefits of the degrees they offer." Rather than "any of them" I would say the majority of them. At least half tout "excellence" of this or that. The ability to process the (mis)information is also immense. How many 18 years olds and their parents know that recent PhDs would prefer a third tier regional public university that offers tenure-track to a full time lectureship at an Ivy? How many know that the award-winning professors at any school seldom have contact with the undergraduates and so on and so on.
Ironically, students are largely self-taught. The best reason to be at a competitive school is the competition among students motivates self-teaching. I suppose tor that, one has to pay.
Ironically, students are largely self-taught. The best reason to be at a competitive school is the competition among students motivates self-teaching. I suppose tor that, one has to pay.
2
"Yet these schools spend considerably more than $100,000 a year educating each student, with the difference made up from government funds, grants, alumni gifts and their often-huge endowments." Do they really? Or do they waste enormous amounts of money on unneeded infrastructure expansion, high profile faculty that are rarely found inside a class room. As most undergraduates will tell you, at any elite institution will gladly tell you, adjuncts and TAs do most of the teaching. Rather it probably costs $20,000 per student for the actual education part and another $80,000 to continue rent seeking to raise more much needed money.
6
Replying to Norberts: I taught at the U. of Wisconsin Stevens Point for 38 years. I had the rank of Professor and taught, in the classroom, 4 courses per semester. If you talk about the flagship campus, you have a point about who teaches, but you still have a wide miss on infrastructure. Many more students go through the satellite campuses than the main one, and they are not taught by TAs. Want us to teach without classrooms? Or labs? They have already cut our budgets to the bone. We are finally getting a new science building to replace the labs that were built in the 60's. Do you think teaching science needs have changed any in 50 years? The State used to cover about 65% of the cost; today its more like 30% and dropping. I agree with you that education is far too expensive (for the students!) but the real problem is that people are no longer willing to spend tax dollars supporting education at the level it needs. We will suffer as a society long term for such false savings. In the meantime, do some research rather than just throw numbers around that sound good.
2
Two things missing in this piece. First, the attitude of students toward education is an important reason for higher or lower graduation rates. This is obvious to those of us who have taught in colleges. Second, consultants and night-club promoters were asked for their thoughts, but why is it that no college or university spokespersons were asked or allowed to offer an explanation? Normally if you discuss the price of something you ask the seller/producer to explain the price. Why not here?
11
Maybe its time to reduce the wages of professors to reduce the cost, and get rid of tenure and the stale teaching methods that have been tenured for years.
The students are paying for the elitist salaries that run the schools, you know the
liberal thinkers with the progressive attitude, it applies to everyone but them.
Get rid of the ivory tower and educate people without having them to be burdened buy the elitist costs to keep the school running.
The students are paying for the elitist salaries that run the schools, you know the
liberal thinkers with the progressive attitude, it applies to everyone but them.
Get rid of the ivory tower and educate people without having them to be burdened buy the elitist costs to keep the school running.
Why do so many states choose to cut their universities--especially when they are spending the money instead on tax breaks for corporations and sports stadiums? What will they do when they lose out to other states (and nations) who have chosen to invest in education?
As one example, consider the University of Wisconsin. This extraordinary public university has made a outsize contribution to the state of Wisconsin by bringing it some of the past minds on earth. By cutting this university the Wisconsin governor Scott Walker has sought to gain right wing credibility as a national politician at the expense of the people he supposedly serves. Shame on him.
As one example, consider the University of Wisconsin. This extraordinary public university has made a outsize contribution to the state of Wisconsin by bringing it some of the past minds on earth. By cutting this university the Wisconsin governor Scott Walker has sought to gain right wing credibility as a national politician at the expense of the people he supposedly serves. Shame on him.
10
Academia is a huge lucrative scam. Tell me. How can I get a piece of it?
3
Do you understand what scams are? The author presents evidence that the product costs more than is charged, and those purchasing it receive far more in lifetime financial benefits than they pay. Some scam! Perhaps you should try it.
The skills that one learns in college are so infrequently applied to the actual job that one does after graduation, that college at this point for many is just proof to employers that one has the cognitive capacity to perform a job adequately. And high school students are so often told that they have to go to college to succeed. If college is so important and everyone wants to buy this product that is a college education then why isn't the cost going down. Isn't that how a market is supposed to work. If college education is so vital to America's economy, then why isn't it free. And, whatever happened to vocational training and apprenticeships? America has become a system where previous generations take advantage of the next generation and the only way for this generation to get ahead is to do the same to the next generation.
We are always extremely reluctant to tell to the prospective student that he or she may not benefit from attending college and will be much better off not getting non-dischargeable education loans - or simply not wasting time. From 92% dropouts of Medgar Evers College very large portion wouldn't have graduated even if tuition, room and board were 100% free. European system may seem harsh as it cuts off the non-college track kids early and pushes them towards apprenticeships - but late-bloomers there find the ways to get educated if they've got drive - and the overall costs of higher education (thanks to lack of futile activity) are manageable enough to have it free or almost free.
I think having student loans available results in price inflation. 18 yo student does not understand the money. He or she just signs and borrows and colleges are happy to collect. If this loan became very very difficult to get - colleges will be forced to look at their pricing and will be forced to lower the price. Right now - no one asks questions. It is raise the tution and spend.
1
Education is by far the most important investment we can make. State colleges and universities ought to be free for all qualified resident students.
2
Colleges should consider a money back guarantee. If a college graduate who pays full tuition doesn't get a good paying job at a certain income within a specific time after graduation and if the student can prove that he/she really tried finding work, the college should refund the students tuition. The college placement offices should also step up efforts to help that student.There are too many graduates of colleges with high GPAs who are out of work. The colleges have failed preparing our students for jobs that are going to be needed.
PAUL FEINER
Greenburgh, NY Town Supervisor
PAUL FEINER
Greenburgh, NY Town Supervisor
Higher education is just one cog, albeit an important one, in an economic and social apparatus that over the past half century has hardened class lines and widened the chasm between rich and poor, just as it seemed to be narrowing. That’s as it creates a new class of super rich who control an alarming and growing share of this country’s wealth.
It appears from here that neither the Republicans, with their stupidly vapid vision
of a world that has never been what they want to believe it to be (or rather, the one they try to convince the voters it should be), nor the Democrats, who despite all the warning signs, fail to persuade the electorate we are heading down a dangerous path.
Mr. Davidson has provided an excellent and depressing analysis of a system that has evolved, as systems do, in ways that help secure its vitality. That’s not a bad thing by itself. In fact, as other readers here have pointed out, in many ways our colleges and universities are the world’s pre-eminent system of higher education. Its failings are not for lack of good intentions.
It is the larger system that forces higher education into the uncomfortable mold in which it finds itself. The question that has to be asked is how can that be changed. But first, we have to understand the question.
Bill Strother
Bloomington, Indiana
It appears from here that neither the Republicans, with their stupidly vapid vision
of a world that has never been what they want to believe it to be (or rather, the one they try to convince the voters it should be), nor the Democrats, who despite all the warning signs, fail to persuade the electorate we are heading down a dangerous path.
Mr. Davidson has provided an excellent and depressing analysis of a system that has evolved, as systems do, in ways that help secure its vitality. That’s not a bad thing by itself. In fact, as other readers here have pointed out, in many ways our colleges and universities are the world’s pre-eminent system of higher education. Its failings are not for lack of good intentions.
It is the larger system that forces higher education into the uncomfortable mold in which it finds itself. The question that has to be asked is how can that be changed. But first, we have to understand the question.
Bill Strother
Bloomington, Indiana
2
The article claims that at top-tier private colleges, middle -class families "generally pay no more than 10% of their income" and "there are generous aid packages available to all but the very wealthiest of students." Not so from our experience or those of any of our friends struggling with college costs. A student with annual family income above about 150,000 a year (hardly the "very wealthiest") is probably looking at receiving ZERO need-based financial aid. That means the family has to pony up about $65,000 a year -- the going rate for tuition, room, board, and books at such colleges -- minus whatever loans they decide to have the student take out. That's more than more than a third of annual income for a family earning $150,000 a year. While a minority of such colleges offer "merit" assistance to students with unusually strong academic records, even then, the annual cost usually remains above 40,000 a year.
3
For many elite schools, the tuition is high for those in the middle class. In many cases, those families earning less than $60,000 pay nothing, but those in the middle class earning about $100,000 may end up paying over $50,000 a year, having to rely on loans, which is the primary driver of the escalating student debt.
2
What the article seems to overlook is that education (colleges and universities) have become big businesses. Tenure at universities is now often not given, professors are part timers with little or no benefits or job security. Tuition has shot through the roof and we wonder where all the money goes. Keep in mind that most colleges and universities might be tax exempt. Additionally most students have a difficult time finding a job once they graduate. This predicament is a metaphor for our whole system being out of control as we rapidly decline into a third world country.
2
This article would have been better if it had just focused on helping more people get a better education. Instead, at the end of the article it mentions ASAP.
More details would be interesting. For example, CUNY used to be the jewel of NYC. Why does it now have "crisis?" What changed?
And the article talks about the increase in the number of people getting various levels of education throughout the 20th century, but where is the evidence that that trend should continue? Is the author suggesting everyone should go to college?
More details would be interesting. For example, CUNY used to be the jewel of NYC. Why does it now have "crisis?" What changed?
And the article talks about the increase in the number of people getting various levels of education throughout the 20th century, but where is the evidence that that trend should continue? Is the author suggesting everyone should go to college?
1
Educational costs are rising for pretty simple reasons: incomes for the most educated people in our society have been rising most dramatically, and they are also some of the same people who comprise the professoriate -- hence salaries for profs in business, STEM fields, etc, have risen quite a bit; campus technologies have become more complex and expensive; students demand more amenities, such as fancy dorms and food services, which are expensive.
The flip side rounds out the problem: incomes for the people who most need affordable higher ed -- the lower and middle class families -- have been stangnant at best, falling at worst.
The solution needs to hit both ends of the problem: more subsidies for affordable public schools, and reasonable taxation policies that will help the long-suffering working classes in our country.
The flip side rounds out the problem: incomes for the people who most need affordable higher ed -- the lower and middle class families -- have been stangnant at best, falling at worst.
The solution needs to hit both ends of the problem: more subsidies for affordable public schools, and reasonable taxation policies that will help the long-suffering working classes in our country.
1
College tuition is as high as it is because most people are more than willing to bankrupt themselves and their families to pay it. Degrees are consequently worthless because everyone has one. All this follows from the fallacy that all people should go to college.
2
“Is College Tuition Really Too High?”
This is truly an American question.
In the 1970’s I attended a German university that was founded in 1457, which today has 19 Nobel laureates associated with it. (All German universities are public.) My tuition, as a foreigner, was about $100 a semester. My tuition in the US then was about $2,000 a semester, 20 times the cost in Germany. I saved money on my American degree by spending as much time as possible in Europe.
Yet, not all Germans go to “college”. They have technical apprenticeship programs as part of secondary education, which combine academics with skills required for German industry. Students have “blue collar” jobs when they leave school. With Germany’s declining population and booming export industry, there is a high premium on these skilled students.
We have a really expensive and misdirected educational system here. It’s expensive, verging on criminal, when you factor in these profit-making diploma mills, which seem to train for nothing.
“Is college tuition really too high?” and “Are medical expenses really too high?” are also flip sides of the same American coin. Again, the latter is an American question, because every other country in the developed world seems to do health care better and cheaper than we do.
We saddle people with educational and health care debts that don’t exist elsewhere. We undermine our own future economic growth with such debt. Moreover, we seem to train people for nothing.
This is truly an American question.
In the 1970’s I attended a German university that was founded in 1457, which today has 19 Nobel laureates associated with it. (All German universities are public.) My tuition, as a foreigner, was about $100 a semester. My tuition in the US then was about $2,000 a semester, 20 times the cost in Germany. I saved money on my American degree by spending as much time as possible in Europe.
Yet, not all Germans go to “college”. They have technical apprenticeship programs as part of secondary education, which combine academics with skills required for German industry. Students have “blue collar” jobs when they leave school. With Germany’s declining population and booming export industry, there is a high premium on these skilled students.
We have a really expensive and misdirected educational system here. It’s expensive, verging on criminal, when you factor in these profit-making diploma mills, which seem to train for nothing.
“Is college tuition really too high?” and “Are medical expenses really too high?” are also flip sides of the same American coin. Again, the latter is an American question, because every other country in the developed world seems to do health care better and cheaper than we do.
We saddle people with educational and health care debts that don’t exist elsewhere. We undermine our own future economic growth with such debt. Moreover, we seem to train people for nothing.
6
Many young adults graduate are very deeply in student loan debt. More college isn't the answer. Good technical or vocational training can provide high paying skilled jobs in construction and mechinical fields. Germany has excellent results with trade schools for much of their population. In the US, we have many colleges awarding degrees that are not marketable in the real world. Students share part of the blame for making poor choices with their education.
Some 50 years ago I went to a middle-level state university. State support was about 50% then and is near zero now, relying mostly on tuition. Remember, too, in all calculations, that the majority of students take more than 4 years to graduate or never graduate, typically 65%-70% of those incoming have done so in 6 years at my university.
When I was a first-year student the school catalog said all costs for living on campus were $1,250. All. Now it is about $27,000 and just the athletic fee is more than my whole year cost. Running this through an inflation calculator, the cost has gone up 3X greater than inflation. With a summer job I could earn a reasonable fraction of the year's cost. Now, with a typical summer job a student would earn but a small fraction of a year's cost. Back then, in those primitive times, the idea of taking on a big college debt was unheard of. A somewhat older banker friend of mine said he had planned to go to college from high school, but when the bill for $100 came in, the family didn't have the money, so he didn't go!
The pattern is familiar. The university now has much more money to spend and spends freely. Lots of highly paid administrators. A college president whose job is not to know the university, but to raise money. And many wonderful new facilities - dining halls, dorms, academic buildings, and most important of all, athletic facilities. I don't recognize the place any more.
When I was a first-year student the school catalog said all costs for living on campus were $1,250. All. Now it is about $27,000 and just the athletic fee is more than my whole year cost. Running this through an inflation calculator, the cost has gone up 3X greater than inflation. With a summer job I could earn a reasonable fraction of the year's cost. Now, with a typical summer job a student would earn but a small fraction of a year's cost. Back then, in those primitive times, the idea of taking on a big college debt was unheard of. A somewhat older banker friend of mine said he had planned to go to college from high school, but when the bill for $100 came in, the family didn't have the money, so he didn't go!
The pattern is familiar. The university now has much more money to spend and spends freely. Lots of highly paid administrators. A college president whose job is not to know the university, but to raise money. And many wonderful new facilities - dining halls, dorms, academic buildings, and most important of all, athletic facilities. I don't recognize the place any more.
1
I'm wondering how this lines up with published facts that 40% of kids entering College thee days require remedial education in subjects they were supposed to have learned in HS.
1
A few other trends are worth noting. First, the percentage of young people going to college continues to increase, so the cost to society as a whole is growing--and somebody has to pay that cost. Second, state funding of higher ed has increased overall but decreased on a per-taxpayer basis and decreased even more on a per-student basis. Finally, the actual per-student cost of operating a college has increased. At the expensive private schools just about every cost has gone up, including faculty salaries and ever-fancier dormitories and recreation centers. In the public sector faculty salaries have been pretty flat, and residential facilities aren't a big deal, but the number of non-teaching professional staff has increased substantially (mostly for good reasons).
Here's a "toy model" based on rounded averages for public colleges and universities (two-year and four-year). All costs are in today's dollars. In 1980 or so the total annual per-student cost of college was about $10,000, and about $8000 of that came from state funding so tuition was only $2000. Since then the per-student cost has risen just 20%, to $12,000, while state funding has declined just 25%, to $6000. But that means tuition now needs to cover the other $6000, so tuition has tripled! Thanks to this conspiracy of arithmetic, changes at the 20% to 25% level have combined to cause a 200% increase.
Here's a "toy model" based on rounded averages for public colleges and universities (two-year and four-year). All costs are in today's dollars. In 1980 or so the total annual per-student cost of college was about $10,000, and about $8000 of that came from state funding so tuition was only $2000. Since then the per-student cost has risen just 20%, to $12,000, while state funding has declined just 25%, to $6000. But that means tuition now needs to cover the other $6000, so tuition has tripled! Thanks to this conspiracy of arithmetic, changes at the 20% to 25% level have combined to cause a 200% increase.
Since colleges and universities are bastions of liberal/progressive thinking, how is it those same liberal/progressive educators don't cut their payroll and costs to make the education more affordable?
1
"Like many categories of consumer products, though, colleges and universities do not constitute a single, cohesive market."
The author clearly does not know how consumer products markets work, since none of them is a single, cohesive market.
The discount used car market is totally distinct from the new luxury car market. Buying and apartment for $50M are One57 has nothing to do with buying a house in The Bronx. Eating at McDonalds has nothing to do with eating at LeBarnardin. Staying at Motel 6 is not the same market as staying at the RitzCarlton.
The only problems with the higher education market, are the distortions being caused by the government involvement. If the government was not involved in paying for tuition (via grants and loans) and cheerleading for college by shortchanging vocational training, tuition would never had risen faster than incomes for decades.
This kind of massive distortion can only be caused by governments. If all of a sudden government said it would get into the business of helping poor people buy whatever automobile they wanted (via grants and subsidized loans), regardless of ability to pay, guess what would happen to the price of automobiles?
The author clearly does not know how consumer products markets work, since none of them is a single, cohesive market.
The discount used car market is totally distinct from the new luxury car market. Buying and apartment for $50M are One57 has nothing to do with buying a house in The Bronx. Eating at McDonalds has nothing to do with eating at LeBarnardin. Staying at Motel 6 is not the same market as staying at the RitzCarlton.
The only problems with the higher education market, are the distortions being caused by the government involvement. If the government was not involved in paying for tuition (via grants and loans) and cheerleading for college by shortchanging vocational training, tuition would never had risen faster than incomes for decades.
This kind of massive distortion can only be caused by governments. If all of a sudden government said it would get into the business of helping poor people buy whatever automobile they wanted (via grants and subsidized loans), regardless of ability to pay, guess what would happen to the price of automobiles?
2
The article fails to mention one meaningful statistic - one that the Federal Reserve recently wrote a paper about - how the number of college students has skyrocketed because of easy to obtain govt-backed loan programs. The govt created a false economy and is now worried about the high costs. Simple supply/demand explains the costs.
What isn't so simple is how the author and mass media also ignore this fact and instead maintain that the way to counter the (false economy) high costs is to pay it with tax-payer funds making it "free" to the student.
Now, THAT sort of math makes me wonder what sort of education folks are getting.
What isn't so simple is how the author and mass media also ignore this fact and instead maintain that the way to counter the (false economy) high costs is to pay it with tax-payer funds making it "free" to the student.
Now, THAT sort of math makes me wonder what sort of education folks are getting.
2
"schools spend considerably more than $100,000 a year educating each student,"
I do not believe you.
You are including all that is spent in the whole budget, the majority of which is not needed or used to teach students. The whole thing is a scam.
I do not believe you.
You are including all that is spent in the whole budget, the majority of which is not needed or used to teach students. The whole thing is a scam.
2
Another person with no idea what the word "scam" means. Coursework in logic might help here.
Yes, college tuition is too high.
3
"Generally, parents pay no more than 10% of their income" - wrong! Plug in a few numbers into a college cost calculator... say the income is $120K a year for a teacher and a nurse in NYC, and the house they bought in the 80s in a not-so-great neighborhood has appreciated significantly. You'll find out that they are on the hook for at least a quarter of their gross income, and the rest of financial aid is most likely loans.
1
I know its hard for you to understand but perhaps not everyone is cut out for college. Back in my day some kids went to college and on to white collar jobs while others went to trade school, learned a trade and that's how they made a living. These days I hear of all these kids that barely got out of high school going on to community college and thus believe they deserve a white collar job with a big pay check, taking on debt as they go along. Newsflash, if everyone has a college degree then it becomes worthless. As a society we need to be honest with ourselves as a nation and bring back trade schools for those who really shouldn't be going to college in the first place.
2
How about adding a comparaison of CEO pay and the increase of donations to elite universities from alumnus in 1974 and today?
Right, and are recording artists really starving? Sometimes the obvious answer is the right one. Try explaining to a European how our university system does not simply favor the rich and see how long you can last.
Our university system, our healthcare system, our housing system, our political system -- American society as a whole favors the rich in a way that it is institutionalized and guaranteed to perpetuate the inequality over time.
It is a simple point to be made… investing in college education for the populace is a wise move for society. This is a truism that my grandparents and my parents generation took as self-evident, but that my generation has rejected. I am embarrassed to be considered a baby boomer.
1
"Generally, parents pay no more than 10 percent of their income." I'd be curious to know where this figure comes from. I have been filling out colleges' online cost calculators in preparation for our high school daughter's entrance to college next year, and the figure I consistently get as the "family contribution" is a full one-third of our adjusted gross income. Even our state university would require us to pay more than 10 percent of our income, though significant less than the more elite schools. And that's for a student with a +/- 3.9 GPA and a lot of AP-level classes. I'd love to know the source of your financial information.
1
The NYT and NHPR's "Planet Money" team can do better than this.
40 years ago, the Universities of California, Michigan, Virginia, and Wisconsin (to give four outstanding examples) relied on state tax dollars to fund the bulk of their complementary missions in the areas of research, public service, and education.
In at least two of these four cases, state taxpayer support to finance the educational component is now down to well below 10% of the total university budget. Major, major cuts in state funding have been the norm for essentially all public colleges and universities.
Mr. Davidson -- you wouldn't have to try hard to track down data on how total educational cost per student (adjusted for inflation) has changed since (say) 1970 at these four institutions, and how that cost has been shifted (in a major, major way) from taxpayers to students and their families.
Try the University of California for example. Educational cost per student has not risen that much since 1970, yet there has indeed been a major cost shift since the days of free tuition for all (which is where things stood in 1970).
40 years ago, the Universities of California, Michigan, Virginia, and Wisconsin (to give four outstanding examples) relied on state tax dollars to fund the bulk of their complementary missions in the areas of research, public service, and education.
In at least two of these four cases, state taxpayer support to finance the educational component is now down to well below 10% of the total university budget. Major, major cuts in state funding have been the norm for essentially all public colleges and universities.
Mr. Davidson -- you wouldn't have to try hard to track down data on how total educational cost per student (adjusted for inflation) has changed since (say) 1970 at these four institutions, and how that cost has been shifted (in a major, major way) from taxpayers to students and their families.
Try the University of California for example. Educational cost per student has not risen that much since 1970, yet there has indeed been a major cost shift since the days of free tuition for all (which is where things stood in 1970).
As a third generation liberal Democrat, I can tell you that I was absolutely astounded and disgusted when the Obama administration proposed eliminating the College Savings 529 Plans, claiming they were really just tax breaks for the wealthy. While the Obama administration came up with a plan to forgive student loans for those who work in the public sector for a certain amount of time, those of us who were trying to save for college costs before the fact were to be the ones targeted for punishment. It was absolutely appalling and, frankly, I have not trusted domestic policy from this administration since. Imagine: a proud Third Generation Democrat feeling fortunate to have a majority Republic congress that would have blocked the proposal to eliminate the 529 Plans had it gotten that far. Fortunately, it was withdrawn due to the overwhelming outrage, and the administration now is targeting retirement plans in its 2016 budget proposal, because that constitutes another good way to punish people who save. I can't wait until this guy is out of office.
2
I don't know about tuition, but the cost of college textbooks is obscenely high.
"Is College Tuition Really Too High? The answer depends on what you mean by college."?
REALLY?
As the accompanying chart shows, the cost of both public and private colleges has skyrocketed 50% in 20 years! That's WAY WAY more than salaries (of the non-1% have risen)!
How is that NOT too high?
WHO has over $10K a year extra? That's "too high"!
REALLY?
As the accompanying chart shows, the cost of both public and private colleges has skyrocketed 50% in 20 years! That's WAY WAY more than salaries (of the non-1% have risen)!
How is that NOT too high?
WHO has over $10K a year extra? That's "too high"!
1
It's too high!!!
Period.
Period.
I've come to believe that American education is just the sorting house for capitalism. By high school graduation (actually, long before) we know who are the laborers and who are managers. Elite colleges find the owners among the managers.
2
While the ASAP program sounds good, I don't buy the estimate of benefits from taxes due to the higher-paying jobs these grads will get.
We are experiencing a transition in the economy toward less jobs available for humans. Thus, you cannot assume that today's job prospects will be the same or better in the future. Indeed, the opposite is more likely the case.
Accordingly, you cannot project those tax revenues for ASAP grads who may not get better jobs than the non-ASAP.
We are experiencing a transition in the economy toward less jobs available for humans. Thus, you cannot assume that today's job prospects will be the same or better in the future. Indeed, the opposite is more likely the case.
Accordingly, you cannot project those tax revenues for ASAP grads who may not get better jobs than the non-ASAP.
college costs should not be measured against the cost of living, but against the income of the average middle-class family. Since Reagan, wages have been flat, but college costs have spiked along with many other things we all suffer. One day soon. government will again work for the people. Insh'Allah.
The author fails to consider the possibility that - for a variety of reasons, not all of which relate to intelligence - not everyone is suitable for college or should attend. He laments the fact that students who go to private nonprofit schools receive much more aid than those who go to less-selective public schools and community colleges, and he concludes that "our system gives three times as much aid to the least needy as it gives to the most." Yet, he fails to emphasize that the most well-endowed and selective colleges are now using their resources principally to assure accessibility to the most needy students provided they have demonstrated the commitment and ability to succeed in these rigorous colleges.
It is a waste of resources to give the most aid to the most needy without regard to their potential and talent. The proper approach is to assure that every college-ready student has access to an education they are suited for.
Finally, his argument that the public colleges in the South and West outshine those in the north and east would come as a surprise to those attending Penn State, U. of Vermont, UMass Amherst, Ohio State, etc. Interestingly, the three Universities he cites as having abysmally low graduation rates, are all in the South and West - Arkansas, Montana, and Alaska.
It is a waste of resources to give the most aid to the most needy without regard to their potential and talent. The proper approach is to assure that every college-ready student has access to an education they are suited for.
Finally, his argument that the public colleges in the South and West outshine those in the north and east would come as a surprise to those attending Penn State, U. of Vermont, UMass Amherst, Ohio State, etc. Interestingly, the three Universities he cites as having abysmally low graduation rates, are all in the South and West - Arkansas, Montana, and Alaska.
2
When I graduated from BU in 1987, the tuition for that year was around 15k, including room and board. Now it's 60k or so, about four times the money back then, and about twice the value of 15k in today's dollars. Harvard, U of Chicago, Yale, ok...pay the 60k. BU? American?(etc, etc) forget it. I would never send my kid to my alma mater, and i would not go 60k per year for any of this schlock unless it was in the top 15. These schools are RIP OFFS!
Fact is that top "name" colleges -- public and private -- pay six and even seven figure salaries to professors who spend perhaps five to ten hours per week doing teaching-related work. The remainder of professorial time is spent doing research, writing and consulting, potentially more than doubling their income. "Name" colleges provide prestige -- to both professors and students. But there's little evidence that they are worth the prices they charge compared to "non-name" colleges -- and plenty of evidence that they pay excessive compensation to attract "name" professors to enhance their reputation without adding educational value for their students.
1
A seldom asked question is whether a graduate of an elite university is really 250,000 dollars smarter or if he has simply been screened through an elite process, thereby gaining the bona fides for an elite job. I think the answer is pretty obvious. Surely, a good student a great college comes out smarter than when he went in, but it is certainly an inefficient way of preparing one for a job. There are other benefits to college--fun, connections, travel, exposure to new ideas--but the American higher education system is also an indulgence that many other countries do not mirror. If one has the intelligence, work ethic, track record of work, and social connections to gain entrance to a top school, that person is also very likely to succeed with or without that elite diploma. A top diploma does set one on a higher trajectory, but for the hiring company it is less clear exactly what the value of those four years of education bring over the value that that student could have brought having spent four years working or training. One thing does seem clear, though: without the massive financial aid enterprise colleges would have a hard time finding enought students who could actually justify their investment. In other words, would an education that cost half as much really be half as good? So what, exactly, is that huge tuition buying--the education or the diploma? Again, a question well worth asking, rather than throwing more money into the business of granting degrees.
James, with an education you might have been able to learn how to write a more coherent reply to this article, which is obviously even in your own mind a valuable skill. Q.E.D.
More federal funding for schools or loans to students is like providing alcohol to an alcoholic. The problems are many. Students going into debt for a job that may not be there in four years is a recipe for disaster. Universities like our healthcare and Military Industrial complex have become bloated with overpaid bureaucrats who provide no direct service (teach, build or provide healthcare). These administrator/bureaucrats, collect data, analyze and manipulate metrics. Causing headaches and grief for the people who do the actual work. I blame the love of bureaucracy and greed for the present broken system.
1
This topic/article needs to compare 'apples with apples' and not apples with oranges as is done here. The tuition at the different institutions discussed here differ to about the same extent as the aid. I live in Lansing, MI, home to both Michigan State University and Lansing Community College. A quick web search shows that the tuition is 3X higher at MSU than at LCC, about the same 3X difference in aid claimed in the article. Indeed, at $8000/yr an LCC student could largely cover all tuition, while an MSU student at $13,500/yr would cover only 1 semester.
Maybe set another marker. In 1974 all you needed was $500.00 and a pulse. You got in.
1
Colleges/universities need to cut costs.
For example,
-- Incorporate into their programs of study, as appropriate, free or low-cost internet courses
-- For each course, publish the knowledge and specific skills required for each grade (A, B, C, D, F), then offer the option of obtaining credit at reduced cost by passing course exams w/o attending the classes (potentially enables faster progress toward degree; encourages independent learning)
- Pay faculty in part for teaching effectiveness (% of students who do well on independent tests of course learning)
-- Cut back, ideally end the building and operating of facilities that lack a clear and strong relation to learning
-- End required charges (usually as part of the fees) for supporting the intercollegiate sports programs (usually football and basketball)
And, extend to colleges and universities the requirement of the Affordable Care Act on insurance companies that they pay out at least 80% of premiums as benefits: that colleges and universities spend a minimum of X% of tuition and fees on instruction, support of instruction and facilities required for instruction as a way to curb the growth in administration and administrator salaries.
For example,
-- Incorporate into their programs of study, as appropriate, free or low-cost internet courses
-- For each course, publish the knowledge and specific skills required for each grade (A, B, C, D, F), then offer the option of obtaining credit at reduced cost by passing course exams w/o attending the classes (potentially enables faster progress toward degree; encourages independent learning)
- Pay faculty in part for teaching effectiveness (% of students who do well on independent tests of course learning)
-- Cut back, ideally end the building and operating of facilities that lack a clear and strong relation to learning
-- End required charges (usually as part of the fees) for supporting the intercollegiate sports programs (usually football and basketball)
And, extend to colleges and universities the requirement of the Affordable Care Act on insurance companies that they pay out at least 80% of premiums as benefits: that colleges and universities spend a minimum of X% of tuition and fees on instruction, support of instruction and facilities required for instruction as a way to curb the growth in administration and administrator salaries.
1
The marginal cost of admitting another student anywhere is much less than $50,000 a year, much less the fanciful $100,000 a year cited (use a little horse sense: how much does it cost to stick another desk in a class--or even pay for some more undergrad lab facility? The bigger numbers are what some creative bookkeeping computes as an average cost, including all sorts of fixed costs. Socially efficient pricing would have tuition equal the marginal cost. QED: they are overcharging, extracting tons of consumer surplus which is dissipated on all sorts of stuff, such as executive staffing and pay (and, by the way, the cost of college real estate is a combination of utilities and repairs: fixed costs, pretty even across schools. Has nothing to do with any variable expense bearing on tuition differentials!).
As to the payoffs to the states from higher subsidization of public colleges: The high figures cited apparent assume that the grads staying in state and become taxpayers. It seems perfectly rationale, from the narrow short-run interest of the state, to slash higher ed spending if it has no negative impact on its future educated population. It's a lousy national policy for states to cut higher ed funding; should be seen as a federal issue rather than concentrating state by state or city by city.
As to the payoffs to the states from higher subsidization of public colleges: The high figures cited apparent assume that the grads staying in state and become taxpayers. It seems perfectly rationale, from the narrow short-run interest of the state, to slash higher ed spending if it has no negative impact on its future educated population. It's a lousy national policy for states to cut higher ed funding; should be seen as a federal issue rather than concentrating state by state or city by city.
"How much does it cost to stick another desk in the class?"
It may surprise you to learn this, but desks are not the primary cost component in running a university. Q.E.D.
It may surprise you to learn this, but desks are not the primary cost component in running a university. Q.E.D.
An interesting article. In addition to the major cuts in state funding to schools that have ramped up the price of education, one gets the feeling that the game is rigged. As a simple calculation, consider that the average cost of a new car this year is at ~ $33k. You can get a loan from a bank for this asset that you will keep for ~10 years at 2-3 % interest or even lower. In contrast, that is close to the ticket price for 4 years at a public university. Your degree, which is supposed to last you a lifetime will cost 5-8%. Something wrong with this picture?
"Generally, parents pay no more than 10 percent of their income"
Not accurate.
My daughter goes to an ivy and i pay more than 10% of my income - slightly over 20% in fact. The author's statement is inaccurate except perhaps for Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Princeton. So he is really speaking of the iciest pinnacles of the blue chip schools.
Not accurate.
My daughter goes to an ivy and i pay more than 10% of my income - slightly over 20% in fact. The author's statement is inaccurate except perhaps for Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Princeton. So he is really speaking of the iciest pinnacles of the blue chip schools.
Good article but one assertion seemed out-of-place and wrong. That states with elite private schools in 1890 never developed elite public schools. Duke - UNC. UPenn - Penn State. Notre Dame - Indiana.
1
it is not the cost of the tuition, it is the cost of the credit card that kicks back 10% to the college, while charging compound interest on the debt from day one.
The real question isn't if tuition is too high. The real question is how, in this so-called "beacon of light", among the nations of the world, that we even have tuition. That fact speaks volumes about the kind of nation that we are, first thing in the morning, with bad breath and no make-up. Every person in this country should have access to a quality education, including college, FOR FREE. College tuition is just one more sign that this country is dominated by the capitalists and average citizens be damned.
1
Speaking as someone who attended UC Berkeley in the early 1950 when tuition was free, the tuition is now excessive.
"Is College Tuition Really Too High?"
Y E S
Y E S
1
My youngest just graduated from college. A very expensive college. Now after funding three kids in college, plus private school for 12 years, I am finally, finally finished.
So let me give you my thoughts, for what it's worth.
1) Make them take a 'gap' year. Stop the assembly line that goes from college prep private school right to college. What is the rush??
2) Most of their high school years were spent on 'getting into college'. In retrospect, most of the guidance counselors really had little insight into my kids. I had to take their advice with a grain of salt after my first kid went off.
3) Do NOT, I repeat, Do NOT let your kid make the final choice. If you are paying for college.... YOU make the final pick. That will be an excellent first lesson for them.
4) Try to convince your kids that grades do NOT matter. A gentleman 'C' is fine, as long as you are experimenting and making the effort. College should be about finding the 'color of your parachute'. Nobody in the real world cares if they got the 4.0.
5) and please, connect a job to what you are actually learning in school. Take a sales course instead of Chinese film, how about basic 101 finance like 'a budget' on your income/expenses. A marketing course that actually goes beyond the resume, which most don't read anyway.
Would I send my kids to college again? Hmmm, still thinking about that as I teach them how to sell, manage their money, and deal with failures at work.
So let me give you my thoughts, for what it's worth.
1) Make them take a 'gap' year. Stop the assembly line that goes from college prep private school right to college. What is the rush??
2) Most of their high school years were spent on 'getting into college'. In retrospect, most of the guidance counselors really had little insight into my kids. I had to take their advice with a grain of salt after my first kid went off.
3) Do NOT, I repeat, Do NOT let your kid make the final choice. If you are paying for college.... YOU make the final pick. That will be an excellent first lesson for them.
4) Try to convince your kids that grades do NOT matter. A gentleman 'C' is fine, as long as you are experimenting and making the effort. College should be about finding the 'color of your parachute'. Nobody in the real world cares if they got the 4.0.
5) and please, connect a job to what you are actually learning in school. Take a sales course instead of Chinese film, how about basic 101 finance like 'a budget' on your income/expenses. A marketing course that actually goes beyond the resume, which most don't read anyway.
Would I send my kids to college again? Hmmm, still thinking about that as I teach them how to sell, manage their money, and deal with failures at work.
1
It's a good analysis, but a couple key facts are wrong.
"... these schools spend considerably more than $100,000 a year educating each student, ..."
No. Whatever additional money beyond full tuition is spent at the university is spent for research - not teaching.
"Generally, parents pay no more than 10 percent of their income."
No, it is more like 30 percent. Upper middle income parents are hit the hardest by this measure.
"... these schools spend considerably more than $100,000 a year educating each student, ..."
No. Whatever additional money beyond full tuition is spent at the university is spent for research - not teaching.
"Generally, parents pay no more than 10 percent of their income."
No, it is more like 30 percent. Upper middle income parents are hit the hardest by this measure.
2
This article really does not properly describe the state of higher education in the US today.
First of all, there is a lack of demographic information. Poor families tend to be MUCH larger than wealthier families, so there are more 18 yr olds graduating from high school from poor families. Many - perhaps most - have no business going to college. They should have been taught some marketable skills while still in high school, and there need to be far more trade schools and apprentice programs available for them.
In Europe, university has always been for the intellectually elite. It is not for the cute, upper middle class girl who wants to go to a big SEC university, pledge a sorority and go to great football and basketball games, education being a distant second on her list of priorities.
At the top universities, parents may only pay 10% of their income in tuition, but that is nearly always 10% of their BEFORE TAX income. With many being in the 25-30% category, that is a huge chunk of their income and that does not include what these families pay for housing in an expensive part of the country, or pay in property taxes, which can be enormous.
Upper middle class families are being priced out of the very schools the parents themselves attended, and they have highly qualified children.
First of all, there is a lack of demographic information. Poor families tend to be MUCH larger than wealthier families, so there are more 18 yr olds graduating from high school from poor families. Many - perhaps most - have no business going to college. They should have been taught some marketable skills while still in high school, and there need to be far more trade schools and apprentice programs available for them.
In Europe, university has always been for the intellectually elite. It is not for the cute, upper middle class girl who wants to go to a big SEC university, pledge a sorority and go to great football and basketball games, education being a distant second on her list of priorities.
At the top universities, parents may only pay 10% of their income in tuition, but that is nearly always 10% of their BEFORE TAX income. With many being in the 25-30% category, that is a huge chunk of their income and that does not include what these families pay for housing in an expensive part of the country, or pay in property taxes, which can be enormous.
Upper middle class families are being priced out of the very schools the parents themselves attended, and they have highly qualified children.
1
The author overlooked the over 1400 small, private, non-elite liberal arts colleges that pepper the American landscape. In Pennsylvania alone, independent colleges account for 48% of all degrees awarded annually. Yet, they primarily serve the middle and lower middle class with most providing institutionally-funded financial aid through tuition discounting. More importantly, statistics reveal that these smaller, independent colleges yield better educational outcomes than their public brethren.
2
I haven't read the entire article. Condemn me if you will. I got stopped right at this clunker: "...the great national crisis is the fact that too many other young adults are not going to college."
Is everyone supposed to go to college? Why? What great benefit does it impart for the vast majority of careers and jobs? College is an entrance ticket, no guarantee of anything else.
"The great national crisis" is that we think college is for everyone and that all those who don't go are failures. Then, we conspire to make them failures.
Who says there will be jobs for everyone who gets a degree? Why?
Our system of higher education is DESIGNED to offer differential opportunities, first over those who don't go at all and second over those who don't go to big deal, brand name colleges. If those differences disappeared, the incentive to go in the first place would be watered down.
You want equality of opportunity? Everyone who is otherwise qualified, generally, for college gets into ANY college through a lottery. Then, after a few decades, you could really see the difference between the big deal schools and the others, because the "smartest", quickest learners would have to prove themselves based on their own accomplishments, not a brand name.
Over 50% of the students who go to the top drawer University of California system colleges have to have remedial instruction in reading and math. These are top students in a top system. There's a crisis.
Is everyone supposed to go to college? Why? What great benefit does it impart for the vast majority of careers and jobs? College is an entrance ticket, no guarantee of anything else.
"The great national crisis" is that we think college is for everyone and that all those who don't go are failures. Then, we conspire to make them failures.
Who says there will be jobs for everyone who gets a degree? Why?
Our system of higher education is DESIGNED to offer differential opportunities, first over those who don't go at all and second over those who don't go to big deal, brand name colleges. If those differences disappeared, the incentive to go in the first place would be watered down.
You want equality of opportunity? Everyone who is otherwise qualified, generally, for college gets into ANY college through a lottery. Then, after a few decades, you could really see the difference between the big deal schools and the others, because the "smartest", quickest learners would have to prove themselves based on their own accomplishments, not a brand name.
Over 50% of the students who go to the top drawer University of California system colleges have to have remedial instruction in reading and math. These are top students in a top system. There's a crisis.
2
Great comment.
A lot of those middle income students are paying full ride so that the schools can give financial aid to students whose grades are not good enough to get them into college.
A lot of those middle income students are paying full ride so that the schools can give financial aid to students whose grades are not good enough to get them into college.
Here's a question for you: How does cutting $250M from a University budget (Walker) make tuition fall? Answer - it doesn't. It just adds to the problem. This isn't just a Wisconsin problem, though. University budgets have been under attack nationwide for decades. Its just ironic that Walker's move was mentioned as part of a Republican array of "solutions."
1
As someone who paid full tuition for two children, I was offended by how the universities were spending their money. Almost without question, every private university I visited over this three-year period - in the midst of the last great recession - was building student centers, workout facilities and other spa-like buildings.
2
This article's premise, the general lack of affordability in American colleges, is simply wrong, and using median cost and aid data is useless. If students and parents use the "Net Price Calculator", a free tool required by the U.S. on all college websites since 2011, they can get immediate, 97% accurate estimates of their future college aid packages tailored to their own family's finances right now, before they even apply. They will find that the generosity of individual colleges varies a lot, but using the NPC they can apply to only the colleges they can really afford. I'm a one-man charity spreading the word NPC's, and you can Google "college generosity" to learn more.
1
Yes. No need for a long article - the answer is yes.
3
Great article. Interesting comparison between the Mayfaur and Chelsea club business and student costs. Enjoyed contributing to it - Paul Norman at CapitalAList.com
"This is a painful bill for all but the very richest." Amen.
7
I paid $250 per semester to attend the University of Hawaii, where I got an excellent education, back in the mid-1970s. A few years after graduation I was off to grad school at University of Michigan which then cost $10,000 per year. I shudder to think what it costs today. Yet, if I had it to do over, I surely would. It has paid its returns so many times over. Thomas Jefferson figured this out back in the early days of our country. College should be free and open to all.
1
The writer quotes a consultant on tuition pricing for elite colleges as follows:
‘‘I’ve got to have enough room under the top-line sticker price,’’ he says. A school that charges $50,000 is able to offer a huge range of inducements to different sorts of students: some could pay $10,000, others $30,000 or $40,000. And a handful can pay the full price.
In New York's ivy league colleges, "a handful" means about half:
https://cc-seas.financialaid.columbia.edu/faq-page/prospective-students
http://www.alumni.cornell.edu/give/docs/UGradFinAidStats_32012cjk-v2.pdf
‘‘I’ve got to have enough room under the top-line sticker price,’’ he says. A school that charges $50,000 is able to offer a huge range of inducements to different sorts of students: some could pay $10,000, others $30,000 or $40,000. And a handful can pay the full price.
In New York's ivy league colleges, "a handful" means about half:
https://cc-seas.financialaid.columbia.edu/faq-page/prospective-students
http://www.alumni.cornell.edu/give/docs/UGradFinAidStats_32012cjk-v2.pdf
The article by Mr. Davidson is misleading.
The cost to attend college is NOT the posted tuition and fees. That number is relevant only to the 0.1%.
For the average reader, the cost of his child to attend college is the posted tuition and fees minus the financial aid that she receives.
This, the real tuition number, is published by the US government and can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/
Take, as an example, Harvard University
The posted tuition and fees, 2014-15, is $43,938
But this is NOT what the average student attending Harvard pays.
The average net tuition and fees to attend Harvard University, is $15,095
That is less than what my school district spends per pupil per year.
And for the family with a median income of $ 52, 000, the tuition and fees for its child to attend Harvard is $6,310.
http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=HArvard&s=all&id=166027#e...
The cost to attend college is NOT the posted tuition and fees. That number is relevant only to the 0.1%.
For the average reader, the cost of his child to attend college is the posted tuition and fees minus the financial aid that she receives.
This, the real tuition number, is published by the US government and can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/
Take, as an example, Harvard University
The posted tuition and fees, 2014-15, is $43,938
But this is NOT what the average student attending Harvard pays.
The average net tuition and fees to attend Harvard University, is $15,095
That is less than what my school district spends per pupil per year.
And for the family with a median income of $ 52, 000, the tuition and fees for its child to attend Harvard is $6,310.
http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=HArvard&s=all&id=166027#e...
3
The article emphasizes this here:
‘‘I’ve got to have enough room under the top-line sticker price,’’ he says. A school that charges $50,000 is able to offer a huge range of inducements to different sorts of students: some could pay $10,000, others $30,000 or $40,000. And a handful can pay the full price.
As well as here:
"Generally parents pay no more than 10 percent of their income"
‘‘I’ve got to have enough room under the top-line sticker price,’’ he says. A school that charges $50,000 is able to offer a huge range of inducements to different sorts of students: some could pay $10,000, others $30,000 or $40,000. And a handful can pay the full price.
As well as here:
"Generally parents pay no more than 10 percent of their income"
Harvard, and most elite Ivies are a bargain for middle class students.
Alas, most middle class students do not have a shot at going to Harvard or other elite Ivies. Why? 40% of the spots open each year are held for "legacies", who are overwhelmingly wealthy, white (or asian).
Think "George W. Bush", who went to Yale and then Harvard -- with a C- average.
Likely that middle class kid is stuck either going to a state school or a mediocre private school -- who will give him a little money, but mostly force him to take on draconian loans at high interest rates. Many kids are doomed from age 17 because of this. Even if they get a degree in 4 years, they will have to pay off this vast debt ($150K or more) over the next 20 years.
These schools are NOT bargains, and many cost more than Harvard or Yale or Princeton (ironically) for a third rate education.
Alas, most middle class students do not have a shot at going to Harvard or other elite Ivies. Why? 40% of the spots open each year are held for "legacies", who are overwhelmingly wealthy, white (or asian).
Think "George W. Bush", who went to Yale and then Harvard -- with a C- average.
Likely that middle class kid is stuck either going to a state school or a mediocre private school -- who will give him a little money, but mostly force him to take on draconian loans at high interest rates. Many kids are doomed from age 17 because of this. Even if they get a degree in 4 years, they will have to pay off this vast debt ($150K or more) over the next 20 years.
These schools are NOT bargains, and many cost more than Harvard or Yale or Princeton (ironically) for a third rate education.
I think this article is also misleading in the comparing 'aid' for students without comparing costs for students. I live in Lansing, MI, home to both Michigan State University and Lansing Community College. Published (web search) tuition at MSU is about $13,000/semester and about $5000/semester at LCC. So, the average aid for state university students cited in the article would pay for one semester at MSU, while the average aid for a community college student would pay for 1.5 semesters at LCC. The relative difference in 'investment' claimed in this article for different classes of students is not as great as proported here.
The article explains that an investment by a state or city in its public universities will raise more in future taxes. This is only true if the college graduate stays within the state or city's jurisdiction throughout their lives. But of course many people move. If state A cuts its higher-education budget but everyone else keeps it the same, state A will benefit; it pays less in its budget but it gains from the graduates from other states who move to it, as many will. This "free rider" problem can only be addressed by intervention of the federal government.
17
How many midwest state subsidized uni degrees are benefiting Texas and California right now?
For example: I live in Northeast Ohio. We have many very fine colleges and universities, private and public. But once they graduate, the students run like Satan was after them on horseback. They don't want to LIVE OR WORK in any place as unhip and uncool as Northeast Ohio -- what would their friends think??? Even worse, there is a lack of good jobs here, especially in creative fields (it is however a good place for doctors and researchers, as we have two big teaching hospitals).
We have a serious "brain drain" and it appears to be irreversible. The educations we are giving out (a lot at taxpayer cost) are NOT benefiting us in the least.
We have a serious "brain drain" and it appears to be irreversible. The educations we are giving out (a lot at taxpayer cost) are NOT benefiting us in the least.
Our present distribution of funds for college makes perfect economic sense in a competitive economy, where winners win and losers lose and the distance between them therefore grows. Reversing a downward path is difficult, and keeping an upper path is easy, since advantages have been accrued that can be used to keep from sinking. To the victor in a competition go the spoils that provide the resources for survival if not victory in the next competition.
2
There is nothing wrong with winners winning and losers losing. There is something wrong with raising the cost of a college education so high it becomes impossible for most people to afford. Greed is not good. There is no reason for colleges/universities to charge so much money for the services they provide.
Unfortunately, since our country ranks 35th in elementary education, we are all sinking. For some reason, the "winners" don't understand that unless we educate the masses we won't be ablet to compete in the global technology markets. Germany and other European countries figures this out a long time ago and thus offer a free university education to all citizens plus a monthly stipend to assist with living expenses.
This is a long needed overview of the pricing and funding landscape of higher ed.
Points worth making -- and a question:
(1) Elite schools not only offer an "elite credential" they also offer superior resources -- including intensive support of various kinds. In addition to admitting excellent students, there are tangible reasons that most students complete their education in four years. Nearly all have a tradition of liberal arts study -- the goal is a broad, well-rounded education focused on academic freedom and critical thinking. This, not only reputation, is a reason graduates of these schools make more money.
(2) It is worth re-iterating that great students make a school great, and they can come from any background.
(3) While the elite schools subsidize every student to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars -- it is worth noting that while many (perhaps half or more) receive significant financial aid, half (or nearly half) do pay the full "sticker price." This means that, though a larger share of qualified students than ever are going to elite schools no matter what their background, the proportion of students from wealthy family far exceeds that of the general population.
(4) The great strength of the elite schools is their well-managed (and sustainably spent) endowments. Sadly, some politicians are attacking these schools for not spending down their endowments more quickly.
Given the elite's success, why don't states replicate this model?
Points worth making -- and a question:
(1) Elite schools not only offer an "elite credential" they also offer superior resources -- including intensive support of various kinds. In addition to admitting excellent students, there are tangible reasons that most students complete their education in four years. Nearly all have a tradition of liberal arts study -- the goal is a broad, well-rounded education focused on academic freedom and critical thinking. This, not only reputation, is a reason graduates of these schools make more money.
(2) It is worth re-iterating that great students make a school great, and they can come from any background.
(3) While the elite schools subsidize every student to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars -- it is worth noting that while many (perhaps half or more) receive significant financial aid, half (or nearly half) do pay the full "sticker price." This means that, though a larger share of qualified students than ever are going to elite schools no matter what their background, the proportion of students from wealthy family far exceeds that of the general population.
(4) The great strength of the elite schools is their well-managed (and sustainably spent) endowments. Sadly, some politicians are attacking these schools for not spending down their endowments more quickly.
Given the elite's success, why don't states replicate this model?
23
State schools don't replicate the model because they aren't interested in paying for high quality faculty who are leading scholars in their field; rather, they would prefer to squeeze as many classes as possible out of sub-minimum wage Ph.D students and other Adjunct Slave Labor.
Regards to 4) It's not how they spend their endowments; it's how they pay the investment managers more than they ought to to manage those investments.
I agree- can you help UCLA raise a $30B endowment?
I think it would make more sense to improve K-12 education. The students in public schools could learn drastically more than they are currently learning. This would both prepare them better for college if they chose to go, or make it unnecessary for students of ordinary abilities to attend four-year colleges at all. Instead of spending money for four years, they could be earning money.
48
In a perfect world maybe. Now come at it from a Detroit's girl perspective.
Want to learn but the street lights are blown out. Not by a thunderstorm mind you but bullets.
Tends to focus the mind.
Put as many smart phones and ipads as you want in front of her. Ducking would be the best skill learned in her situation.
Want to learn but the street lights are blown out. Not by a thunderstorm mind you but bullets.
Tends to focus the mind.
Put as many smart phones and ipads as you want in front of her. Ducking would be the best skill learned in her situation.
Agreed. Elite universities want to attract high achieving students who are well prepared for their rigorous curriculum. Therefore, they mostly take students from elite high schools that are mostly located in wealthy neighborhoods since K-12 education in this country is mostly funded by property tax. Changing this financing model and improving K-12 education broadly will greatly equalize university education.
The idea that "everyone should go to college" is a lefty liberal one, and it's been a DISASTER. Most people neither want nor need college. Most jobs do not require college.
Today a lot of jobs demand degrees, even though it is not necessary (and was NOT required just a decade or more ago). Why? they get hundreds of applications and it's a good way to weed applicants out.
The degree then becomes a kind of "key fee" you must pay to even be considered for a decent job.
It used to be that high school really prepared young people to step into society and become workers. Today, it is just a form of lame babysitting accompanies by sports. A shocking number of young people graduate without knowing how to read or write or do math. Even worse, nobody cares. The people who run the schools are lazy public union slackers, who only care about THEIR jobs and their lux benefits.
Today a lot of jobs demand degrees, even though it is not necessary (and was NOT required just a decade or more ago). Why? they get hundreds of applications and it's a good way to weed applicants out.
The degree then becomes a kind of "key fee" you must pay to even be considered for a decent job.
It used to be that high school really prepared young people to step into society and become workers. Today, it is just a form of lame babysitting accompanies by sports. A shocking number of young people graduate without knowing how to read or write or do math. Even worse, nobody cares. The people who run the schools are lazy public union slackers, who only care about THEIR jobs and their lux benefits.
1
Medgar Evers College has a 4 year graduation rate of 8%?? And I am told that the for profit schools are running a scam. What does it cost per graduate? I'm afraid to ask. And we need more of this? Perhaps we should accept the fact that a fine living can be earned being an electrician or an HVAC technician and that college is probably not for everyone. Everyone wins!!
31
The graduation rate is low but not 8%, I'm not sure where the NYTimes got their source for that but it seems as if it's wrong. Here's the data from CUNY's website regarding Medgar Evers which lists it ranging from as low as 10% to as high as 38.9% in various years with an average of 19% between 2004-2011 (year reflects the entering class). Not stellar but seems to be in line with the other CUNY schools....
http://www.cuny.edu/irdatabook/rpts2_AY_current/RTGS_0007_FT_FTFR_BACC_C...
http://www.cuny.edu/about/administration/offices/ira/ir/data-book/curren...
http://www.cuny.edu/irdatabook/rpts2_AY_current/RTGS_0007_FT_FTFR_BACC_C...
http://www.cuny.edu/about/administration/offices/ira/ir/data-book/curren...
1
I agree that many people are not college material, but don't assume that most people who cannot get a 4-year degree can become an electrician or HVAC technician. Those jobs need brains too.
The US should follow the proven success that Germany has for their huge technical grade/high school education program. For example, I met a couple of young men from Germany who specialized in lens grinding for custom and test applications. They were making a very good salary and had many job options - they worked for Leica.
Germany's economy is driven by the "middlestang" companies which are from 50 to 500 employees and they focus on one particular area of industry. In the US, small start up companies are really the source of employment growth. Why do we spend billions of dollars educating people with a well rounded education. At Purdue we used to say a good education has sides of math, chemistry, engineering and physics.
Germany's economy is driven by the "middlestang" companies which are from 50 to 500 employees and they focus on one particular area of industry. In the US, small start up companies are really the source of employment growth. Why do we spend billions of dollars educating people with a well rounded education. At Purdue we used to say a good education has sides of math, chemistry, engineering and physics.
Before WWII even the U.C.Berkeley student body was mostly composed of the more financially well off. The WWII GI Bil changed all that. it allowed millions of people, mostly men to get a degree.
When I graduated from HI School, tuition at Cal was free. I did not go as I was not really ready for it. However a few years after having been in the USAF I went to CSU Fullerton. Tuition was $350 a semester. My Korean vet GI bill helped me as I still had to pay rent and buy supplies.
Then St Ronnie got the legislature to institute a higher tuition in the UC System, in retaliation for the student protests regarding the Vietnam war.
It is now virtually unaffordable for the average wage earning family to send their children there.
With the advent of the conservative GOP legislatures and an anti tax mentality promoted by them, the voters do not want to subsidize these potential liberals. Education is regarded as a luxury by those who have been inculcated by the parsimonious philosophy of the conservatives.
The liberal arts are considered as superfluous, after all, history exposes bad politics and ideas for what they are. And who needs to be an English major when you have a computer to do your editing and spelling for you?
When I graduated from HI School, tuition at Cal was free. I did not go as I was not really ready for it. However a few years after having been in the USAF I went to CSU Fullerton. Tuition was $350 a semester. My Korean vet GI bill helped me as I still had to pay rent and buy supplies.
Then St Ronnie got the legislature to institute a higher tuition in the UC System, in retaliation for the student protests regarding the Vietnam war.
It is now virtually unaffordable for the average wage earning family to send their children there.
With the advent of the conservative GOP legislatures and an anti tax mentality promoted by them, the voters do not want to subsidize these potential liberals. Education is regarded as a luxury by those who have been inculcated by the parsimonious philosophy of the conservatives.
The liberal arts are considered as superfluous, after all, history exposes bad politics and ideas for what they are. And who needs to be an English major when you have a computer to do your editing and spelling for you?
91
Yes; when I went to Cal in the late 1960s, there was no tuition at all, only student fees of little more that $100 per semester. Those student fees even funded the athletic program. And despite the current hagiography of the "free speech movement" at Berkeley, the ultimate result of campus radicalism was the election of Reagan, who began his political career by running against left-wing politics at Berkeley, as well as the passage of proposition 13, which was a populist reaction against the funding of higher education in the state of California. We have been living with the unfortunate legacy of those two events ever since.
Tuition is way too high, due to higher-ed profiteering. Public universities kept tuition low until about three decades ago. They were formerly staffed by "public servants", who earned mostly middle-class salaries, in return for some job security and a modest pension. This was an excellent social contract, that served the country well, since virtually anyone could afford to work their way through school. Now, all higher-ed institutions are in full-profit mode, having declared themselves to be "businesses" in order to justify exorbitant salaries and benefits for executives, administrators and tenured (not part-time) faculty. Their "business model" is based on exploiting students and their families due to the availability of loans, and manipulating ignorant and corrupt state legislatures that uncritically signed-off on huge salary and benefit increases during the past three decades. Reversing these trends will take political courage, but ultimately both taxpayers and students would benefit.
51
"in order to justify exorbitant salaries and benefits for executives, administrators and tenured (not part-time) faculty"
The two first may be true; not the last. All research shows that faculty salaries have just barely kept pace with inflation. So, the increase in college tuition have not gone to educating students.
The two first may be true; not the last. All research shows that faculty salaries have just barely kept pace with inflation. So, the increase in college tuition have not gone to educating students.
2
I would like to correct the impression that faculty pay has increased over the years. With the exception of a few superstar professors, faculty pay has been steady for decades. To put this in perspective, had I remained a high school physics teacher in Northern Virginia rather than pursuing my doctorate and becoming a professor (now tenured), I would be earning a considerably higher salary.
2
Exorbitant salaries for tenured faculty in state universities ? On what planet do you live ? Go look at how much a tenured professor in English makes at SUNY oneonta or suny cortland Or SUNY morrisville , or any of the other 4 year schools. 30 years ago it was possible to teach in those places (and get tenure) with a masters degree but no more. A phd is the minimum, implying years of extra expenses and foregoing extra income. I'm surprised they still find people to do that - but of course the overwhelming majority of courses in the SUNY system are not taught by full time Faculty you complain about but by adjuncts who receive no health care, job security and retirement benefits and get paid between $2000 to $3000 per course. The tenured professors you complain about are almost all gone and those that are left don't make a killing. I never heard of anyone going into Academia to make money - have you ?
4
In addition to the anti-science sentiments in state governments, another factor tending to depress funding for state universities is Medicaid costs, which I understand have since 1980 generally taken the place that state universities used to have in state government budgets.
20
That is certainly true. We now spend far more on medical care for everyone, and less on infrastructure and education.
This will only get worse when half the population is over 60.
This will only get worse when half the population is over 60.
13
That's why we need tax reform that refects the taxpayer's ability to pay.
This is more complex than it appears because the students going into these schools come from different demographics. I went to a non selective school where half the students flunk out the first year. This was because anyone with a pulse was let in, but the education was rigorous. The loose admissions policy allowed second chances. Once of my fellow students with top grades in STEM field had no high school diploma and was expelled at 16. He was nearly 30 when he went back and a fabulous success. People are individuals and not statistics, in the European system he would have been out for life.
As for community colleges, I have seen some of the best teaching there. There is good reason some do not graduate and the counseling for those who need it is excellent if they take advantage of it. Since a college degree is the new high school, sharp high school students often go straight to community college and bypass a few years of high school. This keeps the attention of students who are bored stiff by pep assemblies and the like. They save 2 years of college tuition.
If you look at college physical facilities from the 70's they were bare bones, now the students have sports clubs and all manner of luxuries. Cutting this back would save a fortune. In my state the tuition is still very low. The programs are excellent and many graduate without debt. Research has shown that students of high caliber who go to lesser schools do just fine. .
As for community colleges, I have seen some of the best teaching there. There is good reason some do not graduate and the counseling for those who need it is excellent if they take advantage of it. Since a college degree is the new high school, sharp high school students often go straight to community college and bypass a few years of high school. This keeps the attention of students who are bored stiff by pep assemblies and the like. They save 2 years of college tuition.
If you look at college physical facilities from the 70's they were bare bones, now the students have sports clubs and all manner of luxuries. Cutting this back would save a fortune. In my state the tuition is still very low. The programs are excellent and many graduate without debt. Research has shown that students of high caliber who go to lesser schools do just fine. .
91
Out for life in the European system? In Spain he´d take the university examination for people over 25 years old and get admitted like any other student. And I´m pretty sure that most other European countries have similar arrangements.
What drives you out (not always for life) in the European system is failing too many tests in a subject or failing to complete a minimum of credits in a given time (in Spain, 10% of the first course in the first year, the remaining 90% after the third year and the second course after the fith year; nothing that hard).
What drives you out (not always for life) in the European system is failing too many tests in a subject or failing to complete a minimum of credits in a given time (in Spain, 10% of the first course in the first year, the remaining 90% after the third year and the second course after the fith year; nothing that hard).
Your assertion regarding the "European system" is puzzling. It certainly is not true of the Nordic countries.
You have a lot of unsubstantiated points that come off like you just made them up. ex. "Research has shown that students of high caliber who go to lesser schools do just fine". Did you just make that up?
This is a great article, and should be required reading for all state governors (especially my state governor, who has regularly cut funding for the excellent UNC system, even as enrollments grow).
I was particularly struck by the paragraph showing that the intervention program costing $20,000/student had a return of $200,000/student. Now that's what I call a good investment!
I was particularly struck by the paragraph showing that the intervention program costing $20,000/student had a return of $200,000/student. Now that's what I call a good investment!
55
Katie,are you sure that all State governors comprehend what they read? No taxes is reality ; discussions about roi are somewhere in the clouds for those clods.
2
Perhaps the reason so many so many grocery-baggers come with University diplomas attached to their resumes is the abundance of graduates with degrees in over-supplied disciplines...like law.
It's a given that American tertiary education is ranked second to none but the focus on higher learning suffers at the hands of funding entities who demand enrollments beyond the population's ability to deliver capable and gifted applicants for the more demanding disciplines. Their answer has been to manufacture courses for specialty careers which didn't exist forty years ago. A Doctorate in hamburger flipping or load balancing in a paper bag is surely not the future of America's bastions of learning.
Part of the solution may lie in extending high school by a year or two - where matriculated students are given freshman graded credit for scholastic achievements...and the word 'undergraduate' comes without a pejorative bias.
Tom Storm
It's a given that American tertiary education is ranked second to none but the focus on higher learning suffers at the hands of funding entities who demand enrollments beyond the population's ability to deliver capable and gifted applicants for the more demanding disciplines. Their answer has been to manufacture courses for specialty careers which didn't exist forty years ago. A Doctorate in hamburger flipping or load balancing in a paper bag is surely not the future of America's bastions of learning.
Part of the solution may lie in extending high school by a year or two - where matriculated students are given freshman graded credit for scholastic achievements...and the word 'undergraduate' comes without a pejorative bias.
Tom Storm
5
Maybe it is because we have failed in the area of secondary education. A look at international rankings will confirm this. I favor extending high school, as you suggest, to inspire and ensure actual learning, not just an ability to take tests and move on.
As the parent of a high school senior who is currently 'shopping' for colleges, the tuition rates are breathtaking. Most colleges are quick to point out that yes their tuition may seem high but few people pay the 'sticker price.' This is analogous to the store that's always running a sale--a feeling of dis-ingenuousness from the start and belief that their 'value' will be perceived by the high price. In any case, as the author alludes to, the paradigm of college education is broken in many ways. As one of the previous posters said, we need to look at European models of apprenticeship where many are identified early on to be funneled into a trade school vs. a traditional college. And the growing trend of online education, MOOCs, and Jucos will start getting the formula right and put many small colleges (the author's 3rd tier) in danger of going out of business or being irrelevant. Why should I go to Smalltown State U if I can take the class from a top tier college online, either free or cheaply? And there is no doubt that this is asynchronous model has an impact on the buildings and facilities race that many of the top schools subscribe to. Sadly, I fear that universities will start to separate in value/tuition/experiences just as income inequality has separated upper, middle and lower economic classes in the U.S.
14
A handful of people can succeed in MOOCs only education. If they are that self motivated, they would have done fine in college.
How about if we stop characterizing public higher education as a product that needs to be marketed and start making an undergraduate degree from a public university a right for any American student who can and wants to make the grade?
101
as if making something a "right" makes it free.
Your preferred policy prescription would require a large increase in taxes to fund your new educational program.
Your preferred policy prescription would require a large increase in taxes to fund your new educational program.
Germany. That is what happens if you offer no-tuition universities. They under perform.
I have no problem funding the best education a student can achieve, even if they then go on to be welders and bricklayers. A well-educated populace is necessary for a flourishing democracy. A well paid populace is necessary for a flourishing capitalist society, and government is the mechanism for achieving that redistribution from capital to labor. A strong government for a strong country.
We allow banks to borrow at zero. Why do we charge our children 8% to borrow to go to college and begin the meter on that interest long before they can earn. The college industrial complex and the parasites that attach themselves to this process to extract all future income are disgusting. They are just as bad as the payday lenders and the towns relying on police to be revenue generators. We have sunk so low in our efforts to eliminate all new taxes. We have lost our humanity.
Not everyone should go to college. Some folks are not prepared and should be told that based on testing and performance. We need other avenues for a living wage....we need folks to work on infrastructure projects....lay gas lines, replace water mains, expand roads, repair bridges, improve household energy efficiency and on and on and on... There are so many opportunities just waiting to be funded.
Not everyone should go to college. Some folks are not prepared and should be told that based on testing and performance. We need other avenues for a living wage....we need folks to work on infrastructure projects....lay gas lines, replace water mains, expand roads, repair bridges, improve household energy efficiency and on and on and on... There are so many opportunities just waiting to be funded.
245
W-Mom you answered your own question....
The reason for 8% interest rates is because such a large population of students getting these loans will not be able to pay them off. Therefore, you are correct - not everyone should go to college.
However, we have a government where EVERY student is incentives to borrow to go to college - with zero --- ZERO --- review of what sort of student they are.
Pick one way or the other - that would be fine - but we do both....incentivize ALL students to borrow from the govt - them wrangle over the 8% loan because so many can never succeed and pay it off.
The reason for 8% interest rates is because such a large population of students getting these loans will not be able to pay them off. Therefore, you are correct - not everyone should go to college.
However, we have a government where EVERY student is incentives to borrow to go to college - with zero --- ZERO --- review of what sort of student they are.
Pick one way or the other - that would be fine - but we do both....incentivize ALL students to borrow from the govt - them wrangle over the 8% loan because so many can never succeed and pay it off.
Good point on the parasites. By that, I think you mean the federal government as they are the main suppliers of loans - through the Direct Lending Program put in place by the Obama administration. The bulk of undergraduate lending is through this program, not private lenders.
Poor K-12 education is the root cause of the whole education problem and is the hardest to tackle. I can understand why some may argue that not everyone should go to 4-year university. However, from the national perspective, the need for a population with strong post-secondary education and training is paramount. In today's interconnected world, we are competing with countries like Germany, Singapore, Korea and even China; many of these countries now has a population that are better educated, or will soon be better, than our young people. If this trend continues, the high paying, innovative, industry leading jobs will certainly move outside US. One may and should argue that improving education of the population is the number one national security issue.
Another result of "public-university cuts" as that public universities have turned to recruiting "international students" (Foreign high school or college eligible students, who are citizens of and living in foreign countries)!
Why? International students, for the most part, pay higher tuition. It's a big time moneymaker for the SUNY schools and unfortunately it comes at the expense of New York State students and taxpayers!
There are tens of thousands of "international students, relocating to New York and attending schools in the SUNY system.
Add the tens of thousands out of state students attending SUNY, and the 2014 total number of non-NY State students, according to SUNY statistics, is:...40,345! (That's over 40,000 seats not available to NY State students!)
Even the Community Colleges in the SUNY system are utilizing this questionable practice, unbelievably, there are 3,351 international students and 4,921 out of state students attending SUNY Community colleges, according to 2014 SUNY statistics!
Although funded by New York taxpayers, it seems the SUNY University system is no longer in business of educating the students of New York State!
Why? International students, for the most part, pay higher tuition. It's a big time moneymaker for the SUNY schools and unfortunately it comes at the expense of New York State students and taxpayers!
There are tens of thousands of "international students, relocating to New York and attending schools in the SUNY system.
Add the tens of thousands out of state students attending SUNY, and the 2014 total number of non-NY State students, according to SUNY statistics, is:...40,345! (That's over 40,000 seats not available to NY State students!)
Even the Community Colleges in the SUNY system are utilizing this questionable practice, unbelievably, there are 3,351 international students and 4,921 out of state students attending SUNY Community colleges, according to 2014 SUNY statistics!
Although funded by New York taxpayers, it seems the SUNY University system is no longer in business of educating the students of New York State!
54
About 460,000 students attend various SUNY institutions. Just putting your rant into perspective.
Think of the situation in another way: New York State now declines to fund many of its own students, so if the colleges didn't do something clever, they would have to shrink enrollments drastically or even close. Luckily, the colleges have cleverly found a way to get international families to make up some part of the lost funding: those international students are now subsidizing the education of the New Yorkers. Of course, fewer New Yorkers are enrolled in state schools than in the past when state funding was higher. But without the international students, even FEWER New Yorkers could be educated, because there wouldn't be enough money. That is, enrollment of New Yorkers is down, but it's down by less than the drop in state funding would imply.
The upshot: it's reasonable to get mad, but not at the international students, or the colleges and universities that accept them. Get mad at Albany for cutting funding in the first place.
The upshot: it's reasonable to get mad, but not at the international students, or the colleges and universities that accept them. Get mad at Albany for cutting funding in the first place.
1
$1,200,000,000,000 owed to the Obama federal government by kids, many without an earned college degree is INSANE. It makes the government The Man -- The Company Town -- to which these kids owe their souls, and futures. This is dependency on government, which the Democrats encourage in all ways, this is simply another way. And wrong. Authoritarianism will be our system of government if the power of the government increases and the private sector weakens. You choose.
Http://www.periodictablet.com
Http://www.periodictablet.com
2
All of these kids took out loans while Barack Obama was President? Well, thank God all of the Republicans have teamed up with the President to tool back the interest rate they are being charged.
What? You mean they aren't? How did that happen?
Put a cork in it Teddy!
What? You mean they aren't? How did that happen?
Put a cork in it Teddy!
1
And your solution is...what? No student loans, to absolutely guarantee a continuing increase in inequality? Your right-wing governors are making public educations more expensive, so debt is the only way for many people to continue their education (and by the way, how much was owed to the "Bush federal government" by kids?)
So you'd rather we owe it to private institutions? I can economically defer my subsidized loans for an eternity, can't do that with my private loans, ace.
College tuition, independent of its specific cost, may be prohibitive to some; it has been argued that if college education were free, applicants may not appreciate its value. I would think not. If a country were really 'smart', it would make college free of charge...as it is the best investment that can be made; and a country that is more educated, will pay back in R & D and social worth, and make work enjoyable again, far beyond its initial cost. Of course, for our current politicians, who can't see beyond their own noses, it may sound anathema or utopic. I guess we harvest what we sow. Good luck in the forthcoming future, were others may eat our lunch, tell us what to do.
20
"If a country were really smart it would make college free of charge". Well, I live in Brazil where college (state and federal universities) is free--no tuition. What's the catch? The entrance examination called "vestibular". Either you score in the 90th percentile or above, or you are not admitted.
The result has been that the free public universities have student bodies from the middle and upper (and white) classes, who could well afford to pay tuition.
Why? First, because these students attended private primary and secondary schools and were better prepared for the vestibular than were those who attended public schools. Second, because the free public universities are the best in Brazil, far better than most private universities, and they like to keep it that way--so they keep the total number of students very low. They are, in some cases, even more selective than the Ivies.
Only in the past few years has there been an affirmative action plan to ensure poor and minority students access to these elite universities, through a quota system. It seems to be working, if slowly.
The result has been that the free public universities have student bodies from the middle and upper (and white) classes, who could well afford to pay tuition.
Why? First, because these students attended private primary and secondary schools and were better prepared for the vestibular than were those who attended public schools. Second, because the free public universities are the best in Brazil, far better than most private universities, and they like to keep it that way--so they keep the total number of students very low. They are, in some cases, even more selective than the Ivies.
Only in the past few years has there been an affirmative action plan to ensure poor and minority students access to these elite universities, through a quota system. It seems to be working, if slowly.
With the easy availability of government-sponsored loans which in turn allow students to afford the high tuitions that would be otherwise out of reach, the colleges have little incentive to improve their cost structures.
Also, it is my understanding that, in formulating inflation-managing policies, doesn't take into account the 3 largest costs by far faced by most households: Education, Healthcare and Housing. as a result, we've got bubbles in all 3. The next credit crisis is likely to be in the student loan area.
Also, it is my understanding that, in formulating inflation-managing policies, doesn't take into account the 3 largest costs by far faced by most households: Education, Healthcare and Housing. as a result, we've got bubbles in all 3. The next credit crisis is likely to be in the student loan area.
15
By a strange coincidence, education, health care, and housing are the three industries that mostly run and subsidized by the government.
7
Oh will you all give it up with 'government loans' cause the tuition increase problem nonsense?
(1) Federal student loans have been around since the mid-1960s. Before such student loans - and the post-WWII GI bill - ONLY the top 10% could go to college. The rest could n o t afford it!
(2) Federal student loans are capped in the amount that can be borrowed by by year of study (lower for freshman, more for seniors) and in total.
The annual amount an undergrad can borrow - even a senior - will N O T pay for even 1 year at a public 4 year university - might cover about 1 out of 2 terms. (Tuition isn't the only cost - there are books, food, housing and no not everyone lives in daily commuting distance of any 4 year college!)
(3) It was in the 1980s that
(a) Parent loans were created and
(b) banks got into the act with private student loans. No cap on how much could be borrowed, higher interest rates.
UNlimited PRIVATE loans fueled a very large part of the price increases.
(1) Federal student loans have been around since the mid-1960s. Before such student loans - and the post-WWII GI bill - ONLY the top 10% could go to college. The rest could n o t afford it!
(2) Federal student loans are capped in the amount that can be borrowed by by year of study (lower for freshman, more for seniors) and in total.
The annual amount an undergrad can borrow - even a senior - will N O T pay for even 1 year at a public 4 year university - might cover about 1 out of 2 terms. (Tuition isn't the only cost - there are books, food, housing and no not everyone lives in daily commuting distance of any 4 year college!)
(3) It was in the 1980s that
(a) Parent loans were created and
(b) banks got into the act with private student loans. No cap on how much could be borrowed, higher interest rates.
UNlimited PRIVATE loans fueled a very large part of the price increases.
2
Yup.
Government-sponsored tuition loans sound good in concept because supporting education is great, but an unintended (although not difficult to foresee) consequence is that colleges just raise prices to take advantage of this new source of money.
Factor in how easy it is to get these loans regardless of the quality of student, prestige of school, or choice of major and government funding seriously distorts the market.
Colleges wouldn't charge $45,000/year if it meant tons of empty seats in classrooms because there aren't enough people who could afford that price. It's pretty basic economics, actually.
Government-sponsored tuition loans sound good in concept because supporting education is great, but an unintended (although not difficult to foresee) consequence is that colleges just raise prices to take advantage of this new source of money.
Factor in how easy it is to get these loans regardless of the quality of student, prestige of school, or choice of major and government funding seriously distorts the market.
Colleges wouldn't charge $45,000/year if it meant tons of empty seats in classrooms because there aren't enough people who could afford that price. It's pretty basic economics, actually.
Excellent article! Thanks for writing it.
5
A well-written essay, but I keep coming back to the first two paragraphs.
"To put these figures in 2015 dollars, we’re talking about median household income of $62,000.... Median family income has fallen to about $52,000"
Over the past forty years, median family income has fallen 20%. Despite vast increases in total hours worked, particularly by women, we make a fifth less.
Everything flows from that. Public university tuition has soared largely due to public cutbacks, because when family income shrinks, so does the state tax base. And those tuition increases, and the debts they engender, become particularly onerous not so much because of their numerical value but because the ability of working people to service them has so sharply decreased.
The Obama Administration and centrist Democrats in general have it backwards. We will not fix income inequality by increasing college attendence, or even attainment. We already appear to have more college graduates than the economy needs, even in STEM fields. If there was a national shortage of college grads, after all, we would see their incomes rapidly increasing - which the first two paragraphs clearly indicate is not the case.
Reduce income inequality first, lessen the winner-take-all aspect of our economy, and the college affordability issue will sort itself out IMHO.
Oh, and make for-profit so-called colleges illegal. Most are nothing but traps dedicated to robbing their students and taxpayers both.
"To put these figures in 2015 dollars, we’re talking about median household income of $62,000.... Median family income has fallen to about $52,000"
Over the past forty years, median family income has fallen 20%. Despite vast increases in total hours worked, particularly by women, we make a fifth less.
Everything flows from that. Public university tuition has soared largely due to public cutbacks, because when family income shrinks, so does the state tax base. And those tuition increases, and the debts they engender, become particularly onerous not so much because of their numerical value but because the ability of working people to service them has so sharply decreased.
The Obama Administration and centrist Democrats in general have it backwards. We will not fix income inequality by increasing college attendence, or even attainment. We already appear to have more college graduates than the economy needs, even in STEM fields. If there was a national shortage of college grads, after all, we would see their incomes rapidly increasing - which the first two paragraphs clearly indicate is not the case.
Reduce income inequality first, lessen the winner-take-all aspect of our economy, and the college affordability issue will sort itself out IMHO.
Oh, and make for-profit so-called colleges illegal. Most are nothing but traps dedicated to robbing their students and taxpayers both.
167
There may not be a shortage of college 'graduates', but there is a big shortage of people who actually know something and can apply that knowledge to their jobs. Ask any employer looking for high-skilled workers; they're far from common.
23
Decreasing college graduates to increase their pay means that more non college graduates will make less money decreasing the the medial family income. Most of the pay increases have gone to the top 1% and 10%, most of which have graduated from elite colleges.
College costs have gone up because the education is better, their are many more administrators, and their are more facilities. When I went to a top college in the 60s my classes had hundreds of students and no professor knew my name or me. My medical school cost $2000/year, was subsidized by the US, state, and city, had no frills, and small departments with little research.
College costs have gone up because the education is better, their are many more administrators, and their are more facilities. When I went to a top college in the 60s my classes had hundreds of students and no professor knew my name or me. My medical school cost $2000/year, was subsidized by the US, state, and city, had no frills, and small departments with little research.
Sorry, but you're missing several points here. Median family income has fallen because of income changes for families that have not gone to college. There is a wage premium for college. The problem is that students from lower-income families disproportionally require additional support to make it through college. Hence it's a cause of income inequality. And on top of this there's feedback too, of course. This is spelled out in the article.
This article points to Robin Hood style tuition aid shifting from the well healed to the poor, loss leader strategies, and pricing tuition by what the market can bear. Missing is a discussion of the major factor that has caused college tuition in the last four decades to increase four fold greater than inflation : administrative glut. Unlike faculty salaries which have been stagnant, the number of administrators has exploded as have the salaries and "packages"of top administrators. It's time to start trimming this fat and examine the role of each administrator on a" value added" basis. The value should be the education of students. Secondly, there was no discussion that public secondary school support in American needs to be unlinked from real estate taxes. The meritocracy elevator requires this change.
141
I keep hearing that administrative growth is the cause for runaway tuition hikes. But I've never seen any numbers around this issue. Administrative growth alone can't account for all of it. What is more likely a larger factor is cuts in public funding, which, in turn, incentivize schools to spend more to attract higher paying students. Some of the administrative growth is attributable to this dynamic, too -- for to offer more services, one needs more staff.
25
Are you suggesting that a child who lives in poverty in NYC be allowed to attend a Greenwich CT public school? That will NEVER happen, nor should it. People pay a fortune to live in suburban cities that don't have the problems that inner city schools have. But in large cities, neighborhood schools are no longer based on the property taxes of that neighborhood, even though many parents are paying VERY high taxes - their local school gets no more per pupil contribution than a poor neighborhood - in fact, they may get HALF of such a school as they get huge federal aid.
1
This is w common gripe of professors, but I've yet to see evidence that "administrative glut" is behind rising higher ed costs. Can you provide some evidence? I am genuinely curious.
And by the way, I am a professor.
And by the way, I am a professor.
2
The quality of high school education has declined precipitously every year since the role of high school has been transformed from educating students to employing and benefitting teachers. Historically it was the responsibility of High School to prepare students to enter the working class - whether it be blue collar or non-professional white collar jobs. We need to refocus and restore the mission of high schools. It should not be the role of Community Colleges to provide the education that students should be getting in High School. We are graduating poorly prepared high school students, which is a travesty. If high schools were delivering on their original promise we would not be having this debate about the cost and social compact of our Nation's colleges and universities.
21
lol ok
Yeah, it's all the high schools' fault. How about considering that students are coming in lazy, self-gratifying and unprepared to put in the hard work it takes to learn something. Watching the other kids surrounding my kids in high school was eye opening, and this in a wealthy suburb, and I'm not even a tiger mom!
The best analysis of higher education costs and benefits I have found.
16
If the sticker prices of elite private schools are set high so they can select the best candidates, isn't it wrong for the federal government to loan money to perpetuate this?
36
Why? It's "wrong" for the US government to support selectivity in its universities? Is this a Communist tenet -- do away with competition because everyone is the same and deserves outcomes that are no more and no less than those of her neighbors?
Or are you saying the opposite -- that it's wrong for the rich to subsidize the education of the brightests but not wealthy enough and therefore our government should not support such a practice?
Or are you saying the opposite -- that it's wrong for the rich to subsidize the education of the brightests but not wealthy enough and therefore our government should not support such a practice?
2
Scott, your argument is clearly missing a premise here. Why does it follow that it is "wrong for the federal government to loan money to perpetuate this", where "this" means elite schools select the best candidates? You would rather the best candidates go somewhere else than the best schools? Why, in heaven's name?
1
This is a very interesting piece. The one thing I take issue with is the 'everyone should go to college' mantra. Sadly right now it seems as if it is college is the only path to even subsistence level living. But it should not be this way. There needs to be other paths besides a 4 year liberal arts education which some people have no interest in and some are just not equipped for. In my mind Germany has an alternative approach with their apprentice system which is also coupled with higher minimum wage laws etc.
155
Here in Germany, there are three tiers of High School: Hauptschule (5 - 9 Grade), Realschule (5 - 10 Grade) and Gymansium (5 - 12 Grade). Graduation from the Gymnasium with your Abitur qualifies you to apply to a University. You can still get the Abitur if you went to the Realschule if you attend a Fachoberschule for 3 years. Many of the non-Gymansium students go into vocational training or apprenticeships to become a Meister in a particular vocation. Some just end up working normal jobs.
The University system here is relatively free (some administrative fees). The downside with the German Uni system is the somewhat inflexible nature with respect to changing majors or schools as well as flunking out. Second chances are hard to come by.
The University system here is relatively free (some administrative fees). The downside with the German Uni system is the somewhat inflexible nature with respect to changing majors or schools as well as flunking out. Second chances are hard to come by.
1
"But it should not be this way. There needs to be other paths besides a 4 year liberal arts education which some people have no interest in and some are just not equipped for."
This is mere classism, racism, and sexism dressed up in finery; "Bill" is quite wrong to suggest that some plebs are "just not good enough for college", "just not equipped for the stuff." Bill, what sort of "equipment" did you have in mind? Last I checked we all here are human beings with minds, and it is the most vulgarian nonsense to suggest that some underclass lurks who is "just not equipped for", or "just have no interest in." The point, Bill, is that an interest in the arts and humanities, and the natural truths revealed by the sciences has to be cultivated in us all, and there is no underclass of human beings incapable of acquiring the fruits of education. Check your prejudice masquerading as "tolerance" at the door, please.
This is mere classism, racism, and sexism dressed up in finery; "Bill" is quite wrong to suggest that some plebs are "just not good enough for college", "just not equipped for the stuff." Bill, what sort of "equipment" did you have in mind? Last I checked we all here are human beings with minds, and it is the most vulgarian nonsense to suggest that some underclass lurks who is "just not equipped for", or "just have no interest in." The point, Bill, is that an interest in the arts and humanities, and the natural truths revealed by the sciences has to be cultivated in us all, and there is no underclass of human beings incapable of acquiring the fruits of education. Check your prejudice masquerading as "tolerance" at the door, please.
1
Honestly, some of our community colleges still teach welding. This credentialism is costly.
perhaps schools with endowments of billions of dollars might pay taxes to the state and make revenues available for public education ?? and don't talk to me about what these institutions pay "in lieu" of taxes it is not equivalent to what they would pay if taxed like a regular business ... and next let us take on the "not for profit" hospitals ... this problem is perhaps predominately true here in massachusetts... yeah harvard we are talking about you and the scores of other universities and hospitals located here
10
So your prefer "mediocrity for all"?
I have read several articles in both the NYT and more recently Slate about having Harvard pay taxes on in its endowment. I find this very perplexing as the money is undoubtedly well spent, educating the brightest minds, advancing the research of Nobel Laureates and running the best medical school and hospital system in the world among hundreds of other things. The tuition that Harvard collects constitutes only 20% of the Harvard University operating budget, with a huge amount the 80% shortfall coming from the endowment.
Be reminded the endowment is very large because of a large number of appreciative alumni giving, a smaller giving amounts in the hundreds of millions. Harvard is successful and should not have to apologize. It contributes to the world in vastly greater proportion than any person or institution I know of. Apple has close to 100 billion in profits abroad that it does not want to bring back to the US for tax purposes. How about taxing Warren Buffett or Bloomberg at a higher rate?
As for the taxing Harvard, penalizing it for its success, and giving it to state schools, do we really want to have Chris Christie deciding where billions of "extra" dollars should go?
Be reminded the endowment is very large because of a large number of appreciative alumni giving, a smaller giving amounts in the hundreds of millions. Harvard is successful and should not have to apologize. It contributes to the world in vastly greater proportion than any person or institution I know of. Apple has close to 100 billion in profits abroad that it does not want to bring back to the US for tax purposes. How about taxing Warren Buffett or Bloomberg at a higher rate?
As for the taxing Harvard, penalizing it for its success, and giving it to state schools, do we really want to have Chris Christie deciding where billions of "extra" dollars should go?
1